Re: artificial distinctions -- Allergy? No. The word "allergy" implies something like an *unhealthy*, more than normal, immune response. My take would be that my (yes, abnormally high) immune response to artificial discretization is *healthy* and appropriate. Those of you who don't have such a high response to it are the unhealthy ones. 8^)
Re: obfuscation -- Yes, that's part of the problem with Peterson and his ilk. They are justifying folktale motifs with scientismist jargon, much like the quantum and complexity woo rampant in new age, self-help communities. Re: intra- vs. organism behavior I'm not suggesting there's no reason to distinguish between playing blackjack and fighting. What I am suggesting is that biological evolution is an appropriate explanatory tool for physiology, but NOT an appropriate explanatory tool for behaviors like playing blackjack and fighting. Please note that I'm not *claiming* evolution is inappropriate for such questions ... only positing it as a provocative counter-claim to evopsych claims being made by others. Re: evopsych-appropriate questions I'm not so much asking what we're *interested* in. I'm asking what kinds of questions should evopsych apply to? I'd enjoy seeing a response to Dave's last post, though I seriously question the assumptions he's embedded in them. 8^) In particular, it's not clear to me if the evidence decisively shows that, in all hunter-gatherer societies, women exclusively gathered and men exclusively hunted. The recent discovery that neolithic (?) women's arms were much stronger than we might have thought, shows our inferences from (whatever) evidence can be fragile. But answers to his questions would be helpful, regardless. Going back to physiology or anatomy, perhaps gender role differences can be tied to something like the evolution of the hippocampus, but not to something psychological like "multi-tasking"? On 02/21/2018 10:19 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I think you are overly sensitive to *potential* artificial discretization and > perhaps project your fear/resentment/mistrust of it onto some of the > statements made here? I take some of this to be a feature of contrarian > trolling (in the Socratic sense invoked above), but is it also in some way a > personal allergy you suffer? > I don't find Oxytocin or Dopamine any more (and possibly less) "obvious" > personally. While I have some storytelling about those two molecules, their > source in the body, their effect on neurobiology, metabolism, mood, and > behaviour, those stories all depend very much on specialized/reserved > knowledge, while the "alpha male" and the "female display" (and similar) > stories come from a much larger lore than what you might be suggesting that > EP is as arcane/obscure/un(der)motivated as (fairly modern/recent) > neurobiology. > Your general line of reasoning/discussion here would suggest that there is no > reason to look at the artifice of playing BlackJack to in any way relate to > more visceral risk taking such as fighting off a predator with primitive > weapons or that the cuddling/coddling of a child shouldn't be considered a > deep part of a group-survival instinct of humans (and most/all > mammals/warm-blooded creatures)? > If you are asking why we are not interested in the possible selective value > of mimicry and adoption of cultural norms but we ARE interested in the > possible value of controlling/influencing choice of one's reproductive > partner's, I would answer: 1) I think "we" ARE interested in both; and 2) > the latter is somewhat more salacious than the former and we *might* look at > to EP arguments for preferences for salacity as well? -- ☣ 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
