[FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

People often talk as if references to internal things ... hormones, etc., are less mediated than references to behavior .  Your reference to lactic acid is a good example.  "Lactic acid" might be an partial explanation for "legs giving out" but it's not a substitute for it.    Psychophysiological explanation, to the extent that its ever relevant,  relies on careful behavioral observation and analysis. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:42 AM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?

I realized last night that someone might think my response is either a) moving the goal posts or b) nonsequitur, since it seems obvious that behaviors at the organism layer are categorically different from behaviors at the organ layer.  What seems obvious is often misleading.  So, I figured I'd follow it up with 2 stories:

1) https://www.wikihow.com/Dilate-or-Shrink-Your-Pupils-on-Command

The parry against a gamer who would manipulate your tendency toward pupil mimicry might be to warn them, "Be careful, now, I loaded up on oxytocin before our meeting."  (Oxytocin having been shown to increase skepticism about others' trustworthiness.)

2) http://www.mindthesciencegap.org/2013/06/01/burn-baby-burn-the-truth-about-lactic-acid-and-exercise/

Although I think we know it's not the lactate that causes the exercise burn, is it really any *more* expressive to say "my legs started to give out at mile 23" than "I really felt the lactic acid at mile 23" ... or "the acidosis got me at mile 23"?

There are plenty of other stories, as well ... like being "hangry", as a pop culture way of invoking ghrelin and/or insulin.  Or the "rush" one might get from bungie jumping or slot machines.  My point being that the distinction between intra-organism vs. organism behaviors is artificial, an artifice put to good use in rhetoric like the "alpha male" or "female 'display'".


On 02/20/2018 02:24 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> 
> On 02/20/2018 02:14 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Well, the reason we don't talk about oxytocin, or dopamine, or even testosterone, much, is that they aren't behaviors.
> 
> Yes, they are behaviors.  When we talk about something like a hormone, 
> we're not really talking about the molecule, are we?  Yes, the 
> molecule is part of the conversation.  But the real conversation is 
> about the *interaction* of that molecule with other structures in the 
> body.  (E.g. hormones behave differently from neurotransmitters ... 
> what makes them different is *that* they behave differently, not so 
> much that their structures are different.)
> 
> To boot, when we talk about psychiatric interventions like SRIs, we're talking about the behaviors "X reuptake inhibition".  So, that they are behaviors isn't even (merely) relegated to physiology.  They're straight up psychiatry.
> 
>> I really don't give a damn about your testosterone levels so long as you don't punch me in the nose.  
>>
>> By the way, we have a friend back east who is constantly looking for new drugs to increase her energy and well-being, and so she decided to try testosterone.  After a month on testosterone supplements, she said:  "I am surprised you guys behave as well as you do!"
>>
>> Testosterone IS a poison.  
> 
> Heh, the dose is the poison!
> 

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove