[FRIAM] On Evolutionary Atavism

[Stephen Guerin]

My so-called mind is still churning from our conversation about
evolutionary atavism,  the idea that current behavioral systems may be
ill-suited to contemporary circumstances

Hmm, I don't frame EO Wilson's aphorism in natural selection. Assuming
*our* conversation is about evolutionary atavism seems one-sided in the
dogma and lens of Victorian science.

 <grin> and  :-p






____________________________________________
CEO Founder, Simtable.com
stephen.guerin at simtable.com

Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu

mobile: (505)577-5828

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 6:07 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Evolutionary Atavism
>
> My so-called mind is still churning from our conversation about
> evolutionary atavism,  the idea that current behavioral systems may be
> ill-suited to contemporary circumstances.   As an evolutionary psychologist
> I should be for it; however, as a survivor of the instinct wars of the
> 1950’s, I should be against it.  Where am I?
>
>   The problem with evolutionary atavism arises when people start
> attributing any necessity to it.  Natural selection would not be possible
> if organisms did not offer up structures and behaviors that are
> maladapted.  Evolution could not have occurred if organisms did not respond
> to these maladaptations with adaptive changes.  Evolution is a dynamic
> between change and stability and the interesting question is why some
> things change while others don’t, and why some changes occur more rapidly
> than others. Asserting that some things are the same as they were a million
> years ago because they didn’t happen to change is just silly.
>
> Still, evolutionary atavism does play a role in my thinking.  Let’s work
> an example together and see what that role is and whether it is justified.
> I listened with guilty pleasure to Obama’s address ridiculing MAGA
> thinking.  My pleasure was guilty because I thought his speech would make
> Trump more likely to win the election.    This conclusion arose from an
> evolutionary hypothesis about the origins of charisma.  The logic, such as
> it is, goes like this.
>
>
>
>    1. *The modern human species arose 160kyrs ago from a very small
>    number of small groups.  *That the human species passed through a
>    severe bottleneck at it inception is probably true; that it was composed of
>    small group at that time is a plausible surmise.
>    2. *Those groups were engaged in intense competition at the
>    bottleneck.  *This statement is reasonable but not supported by any
>    data I can think of.
>    3. *Therefore, they survived or failed as groups.  *Again, merely
>    plausible.
>    4. *Those groups survived that were capable of rapid concerted action.
>    *This is based on the idea that in emergencies it is most important
>    for every to do some thing, rather than for them to wait and work out the
>    best thing to do. Barely plausible. Not even clear how one would go
>    about researching it.
>    5. *Groups capable of shifting to an authoritarian organization in
>    response to a perceived existential threat survived in greater numbers than
>    those that didn’t.*
>    6. *Humans, therefore, are inclined to put their faith in a single
>    person when they perceive an existential threat.  *Let’s call this the
>    “Charismer Response”
>    7. *The person most likely to be selected for this role is apparently
>    single-minded and decisive.  *This gives us the characteristics of a
>    *Charismer*,
>    8. *Charismees relinquish their capacity for independent rational
>    thought in favor of the Charismer’s decision-making. *
>    9. *Charismees receive benefits from the group in proportion to their
>    demonstrations of surrender of rationality.*
>    10. *Charismees demostrate their surrender by the repetition of o  or
>    more flagrantly irrational beliefs. (virgi birth, stole election ,  etc.)*
>    11. *Challenges to these beliefs only increase charismees allegiance
>    to the group*
>    12. *Therefore, Obama should have kept his smarty-pants mouth shut. *
>
> You all ca*n* evaluate the heuristic, rationality, a*n*d probability of
> this argument.  I am going to stop *n*ow because my keyboard has stopped
> reliably producing “*n’s” * ad is drivig me uts.  At best, I think
> evolutionary atavism is a source of plausible hypotheses about why
> organisms are not adapted to their current circumstances.  See some of you
> tomorrow.
>
> Sicerely,
>
> ick
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20241016/dfe67681/attachment.html>