"Just-So Stories" Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses.[citation needed] For example, kin selection predicts that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.[citation needed] Defenders of evolutionary psychology suggest that the term "just so story" is a derogatory way of describing alternative hypotheses which need empirical evaluation. Furthermore there is no known scientific mechanism which can explain human behaviour besides natural selection. Leda Cosmides noted in an interview: "Those who have a professional knowledge of evolutionary biology know that it is not possible to cook up after the fact explanations of just any trait. There are important constraints on evolutionary explanation. More to the point, every decent evolutionary explanation has testable predictions about the design of the trait. For example, the hypothesis that pregnancy sickness is a byproduct of prenatal hormones predicts different patterns of food aversions than the hypothesis that it is an adaptation that evolved to protect the fetus from pathogens and plant toxins in food at the point in embryogenesis when the fetus is most vulnerable - during the first trimester. Evolutionary hypotheses - whether generated to discover a new trait or to explain one that is already known - carry predictions about the nature of that trait. The alternative - having no hypothesis about adaptive function - carries no predictions whatsoever. So which is the more constrained and sober scientific approach?" In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes: "Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses.[citation needed]
For example, kin selection predicts that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.[citation needed]
Defenders of evolutionary psychology suggest that the term "just so story" is a derogatory way of describing alternative hypotheses which need empirical evaluation. Furthermore there is no known scientific mechanism which can explain human behaviour besides natural selection.
Leda Cosmides noted in an interview:
"Those who have a professional knowledge of evolutionary biology know that it is not possible to cook up after the fact explanations of just any trait. There are important constraints on evolutionary explanation. More to the point, every decent evolutionary explanation has testable predictions about the design of the trait. For example, the hypothesis that pregnancy sickness is a byproduct of prenatal hormones predicts different patterns of food aversions than the hypothesis that it is an adaptation that evolved to protect the fetus from pathogens and plant toxins in food at the point in embryogenesis when the fetus is most vulnerable - during the first trimester. Evolutionary hypotheses - whether generated to discover a new trait or to explain one that is already known - carry predictions about the nature of that trait. The alternative - having no hypothesis about adaptive function - carries no predictions whatsoever. So which is the more constrained and sober scientific approach?"
In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes:
"Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
The norms of society in the UK will differ to other countries, societies and cultures elsewhere in the world. Is there actually a common 'natural' state for all men and all women? Ad astra per aspera
yup. but live that out and you'll end up in jail, pronto...
semi-snark ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Is there actually a common 'natural' state for all men and all women?
The philosophical non-starters we inherit from the likes of Rousseau... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
The closest I could try to articulate would be how would male and female roles fall into place were a small community/tribe to find themselves living together - no 'cultural' structures or rituals or roles currently established... My first thought there is that it would largely be determined by the environment they were living in and thus would vary. Ad astra per aspera
And none carried over from whatever communities these people come from... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Cue in Lord of the Flies. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
But on a very pessimistic days, I'd say LotF wouldn't be that far from the truth...
And as fictional as reality TV. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
must be the poverty...
i remember hearing that in europe in the middle ages, once a year the whole village would meet by night and bonk their hearts out in the dark with whomever.
mixing up the old gene pool... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i'm looking at the unravelled skeins around our feet.
on the bright side, i see a new global culture forming too, woven from the many threads that survive commodification.
pop over to sven's musical diary for evidence of that... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
yup that's our main contribution.... better KIT ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
then we traded it in for the truman show.
'madmen' is the new 'sopranos'. i was happy to see that obama relaxes to it on the campaign plane.
anyone want to learn through drama how the truman show took over western media culture in the sixties could do worse than check it out. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
lately not so much. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i guess the chinese olympics...
<dux> ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Not that that would be too surprising... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
the virtue of other cultures is they're not ours, which of course can lead to romanticisation, of which i have been guilty, but no more, no more...
not since i found ET, lol! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Except in the case of social creatures (such as humans) in which the social is part of the natural. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
How much of how we behave, live, work and so on is defined by social norms and expectations and upbringing and how much is driven by say genetics or personality? It is an interesting debate to have because depending on whether you believe the 'natural' (whatever that is) or the 'social' is more influential then your view on how to tackle social problems will vary. Ad astra per aspera
And it is not whether - or, is the point. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
my new kitty says hi, btw! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Plus the page refresh takes ages.
I tend to duck out at that point. keep to the Fen Causeway
get a catmac! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
are the only debates that interest you reducible to binary terms?
funny, i find that's exactly what makes these types of discussion so fascinating, and they generate so many comments, too. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
So, yes, I don't find it interesting but not for the reasons you imagine. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
it is now clearer to me why you find it uninteresting.
perhaps because you don't anticipate any novel viewpoints to emerge here?
luckily it is interesting some of us... a hoary argument for sure, but it's the journey, not the arrival.
meaning we may never know, but the conversations it enables are revealing, because it's obviously something many great minds have bent to understand, and some here have reflected quite deeply thereupon, to judge by the interest and comments.
horses for courses... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
