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 <profw...@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 >
============================================================ 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
