[FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?

[Pieter Steenekamp]

I'm not a psychologist but I currently work in the field of AI deep
learning and this is modeled on the human brain, so let me comment on
Dave's question from my insight I developed working in this field.

In addition to the evospych component of human behavior, the human brain
also works like a "scenario simulator/tester". Our evospych component is
similar to those find in other animals, but the  "scenario simulator/tester" is
practically unique in humans. It's strong in humans and very weak or absent
in animals. The brain's simulator has a model of the world to simulate
different scenarios and compares the outcome to select the action resulting
in the best outcome. The actual behavior is then a combination of
evospych (instinct)
and reason (using the simulator).

Just an afternote on my work. The current mainstream AI deep learning does
not have a "scenario simulator/tester", it merely uses artificial neural
networks that learn like the brain's neurons learn. The scenario
simulator/tester is new groundbreaking work spearheaded by Demis Hassibis
of DeepMind (owned by Google). I'm not an academic, I use the same
structure for commercial applications. In my work, I also include an ABM
model as part of the  "scenario simulator/tester" to model human behavior
to do dynamic pricing.



On 16 February 2018 at 23:15, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Another question for Nick
>   -- does evolutionary psychology hold that every psychological behavior
> is explainable, at least in principle, or are some behaviors / some
> psychological states outside the purview of evospych? For example, is the
> an evolutionary explanation for the observed behavior that people generally
> drink red wine at room temp and white only when chilled.  If not, what is
> required to elevate a behavior to a "trait" worthy of the attention of
> evopsychs?
>
> davew
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018, at 10:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> >
> > Excellent contribution!  Thanks, Nick.
> >
> > Of course, your arguments, in this letter, are primarily academic.  So,
> > they won't grip the populace in the way Peterson's have (unless you
> > launch a marketing campaign like he did, of course).  But I found the
> > biased sample argument plausible as something which *would* grip the
> > public, especially with this President and the #metoo stuff.
> >
> > I believe (though I'm often wrong) Peterson's arguments seem closely
> > parallel with the sexual gamers, pick-up artists, who try to game the
> > mating game.  It's akin, I think, to the "power pose" concept or,
> > perhaps even the "smile to be happier" thing.  In Peterson's case, it
> > amounts to "act successful, and you'll have more sex."
> >
> > Your two arguments: 1) that we'd expect a "curvilinear" relationship
> > between success and more partners -- from which I infer some sort of
> > saturation curve, and 2) justificationist studies will tend to self-
> > select towards posers, combine to form an argument that might grip the
> > public, in these times.
> >
> > Women (and men) should be understood as complex enough creatures so as
> > to be capable of spotting the gamers.  Even *if* Peterson et al are
> > presenting some sort of essentialist truth (while squinting from the
> > window of an airplane), too many details have been removed for their
> > self-help woo to be true in any concrete circumstance.
> >
> > My goal, however, would be to formulate a counter-hypothesis, perhaps
> > based on the detection of defectors ... an evol. psych. counter-
> > hypothesis.  Perhaps the detection of *lies* is rooted somewhere in
> > biology?  Renee' mentioned the other day that some squirrels are
> > defectors/gamers and they'll simply watch the industrious squirrels as
> > they stash their nuts, then the defector will go dig up the stashed nut.
> > So, some industrious squirrels have developed a lying technique where
> > they pretend to bury a nut, then run off to bury it somewhere else.  It
> > seems we could formulate a testable, evol. psych. hypothesis that claims
> > men and women who are authentic tend to be happier and have more babies?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 02/15/2018 11:58 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > > Here is another paper <https://www.researchgate.net/
> publication/247372033_Oh_no_Not_social_Darwinism_again> much shorter
> (only 600 wds)  and better Xeroxed, which exemplifies my contempt for this
> latter sort of evolutionary psychology.
> >
> >
> > --
> > ☣ 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
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20180217/60248da2/attachment.html>