the evolving mind

When debating and criticizing differing ideas and worldviews, I think it is important to put the focus on the “that” of the opposition rather than the “they.” For example: Instead of, They are ridiculous for holding that belief, it is better to go with, That belief (they hold) is ridiculous.

I can think of three reasons why.

1. Ad hominem thinking is a cheap, easy tactic. They hold that belief simply because they are stupid or evil, etc., while you are smart and virtuous. Right.  Reasonable argumentation steers clear of ad hominem tactics.

2. In most cases it is simply more accurate, more true. Intelligent people can hold stupid beliefs. And we all know, or should know, that people can be wise and virtuous in one area of their life, but not in another. We are multi-faceted creatures that can be X in some situations, Y in others. What are the situations? To get more specific is to be more disciplined in our thought and more reality-based, so to speak.

3. To focus on the specific ideas of those we disagree with is more humanistic in this regard: By doing so we covertly or overtly express a belief in human potential and the need for the freedom to change. Personally, I don’t like to think of myself as an atheist or even a humanist. Because these are not who I am but rather what I do. Will I do the same tomorrow? Probably. But even so, I want and prize the freedom to change. For myself and others.

By focusing our criticisms on the ideas and not the individuals, a working relationship is easier to maintain. We can agree to disagree without alienating the other. If we do desire change, it is certainly easier to change when the focus is on thoughts and behaviors rather than identities.

Yes, at times I get exasperated and will lazily aim my criticisms at a group of people or a stereotypical type of person. But that is only something I do. A bad habit. Fortunately, I have the freedom to change, if given the opportunity.

Technorati Links: debate, humanism

Gotta love this item from the Onion about a fictional church that cancels its services due to “lack of God.”

A church that adapts to reality! . . . Oh, wait. It is a fictional church.

Technorati Links: atheism, religion

Both emotion and intelligence are complex topics: there are many aspects to each. What further complicates these is are the many ways they are interrelated. Emotion influences cognition; cognition influences emotion.

For example, working memory plays an important role in cognition and intelligence. When we are stressed and distracted, our working memory becomes limited. And the influence goes in the other direction as well. A team of researchers has recently found this particular relation between mothers and their parenting behavior:

[M]others whose negativity was most strongly linked with their child’s challenging behaviors were those with the poorest working memory skills. The authors surmise that “for mothers with poorer working memory, their negativity is more reactive because they are less able to cognitively control their emotions and behaviors during their interactions with their children.” [source] [bold added]

I like the “authors surmise” wording. Well done.

While this one study doesn’t prove anything, it certainly suggests a link between cognitive capacity and emotional behavior. It brings to mind an in-depth literature review I conducted a few summers ago into the risk factors for crime. My goal was to see if either belief or non-belief was among them. Neither were. But that’s another story. One interesting risk factor I did discover, however, was low verbal intelligence.

Low verbal intelligence as a risk factor for criminal behavior? Interesting. I can surmise that the reason for this is as follows: Verbal behavior is symbolic behavior. Via language we can problem-solve and influence others. When we are poor at this, perhaps we must resort to other options.

Maybe.

Is it possible that kids who stay in school are more likely to become law-abiding citizens and more capable parents because they have, in part, exercised and improved their cognition to a point where they can better manage their emotion? I look forward to finding out.

Technorati Links: emotion, parenting, psychology

This recent scientific finding speaks for itself:

Scientists have long known that opium-like painkillers, called opioids, relieve not only physical pain, but also some forms of emotional stress. Now, a new study reviewed by Faculty of 1000 Biology member Markus Heilig shows that small genetic differences in the gene for the opioid receptor can determine the intensity of people’s responses to social rejection. [source]

One study in the research consisting of gauging (via brain scans) subjects’ responses to being excluded from playing catch with others — in a video game.

The results showed that people with a certain mutation in their opioid receptor reacted more strongly to social rejection than those with a normal opioid receptor.

That’s darn interesting.

Does the above mean we should replace the thought/statement, “So-and-so is too sensitive!” with “So-and-so must have insufficient opioid receptor activity”?

It’s a thought.

Technorati Links: emotion, psychology

At this moment the weather on my planet . . . ucks.

Okay, the weather in my small corner of the planet is much less pleasing than what I expect and prefer. Gray, raining, 54 degrees. 54! That’s not even 60. In Florida!

I wonder what the weather is like on Xargle Brug Z23 right now. I bet both of their suns are shining brightly, nary a cloud in their methane sky.

Methane sky?! Maybe I’ll stay home. It actually ain’t so bad. Considering the alternatives.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: cosmos, NASA

While chimpanzees build no churches in which they bow down to an invisible alpha, they do engage in some behaviors that could be considered pre-religious. For example, chimpanzees will make threat displays at an approaching thunderstorm, as if attempting to bluff it away. In this case they have extended a natural propensity beyond the domain of real agents, where a threat might produce results, to the domain of non-agents (storms), where the threat will absolutely not produce results in the form of influencing the behavior of the target entity.

I will develop and discuss this aspect of chimpanzee psychology — and possibly our evolutionary heritage as it pertains to superstitious and religious behavior — in a future series of posts in my Almighty Alpha project. The title to that series: “The Buds of Religious Behavior.”

In the near term, we will continue our examination of whether or not the chimpanzee deserves identification as the truest proto-human and thus legitimate focus of evolutionary psychology. The following three bits of information illustrate why I believe Pan troglodytes is the best candidate for providing clues to the evolution of human behavior, including religious stories and rituals.

1. “Unlike monkeys, who in most cases have a rigid social structure, chimpanzees have a very loose social structure.” (4)

Groups and leaders seem to be temporary. Both chimp and human. Can a I get an “amen” from the congregation? Or will there be an attempted coup instead? But wait! I’m just speaking for the Big Guy.

2. Not only is “Chimpanzee social behavior…the most plastic and human like among that of existing nonhuman primates,” but chimpanzees share the what seems to be the bulk of social emotions that humans display. (5)

Case in point: chimpanzee mothers who experience a death of their infant frequently drag around the lifeless body for days on end. While no human mother does this literally, the figurative equivalent can occur for months and even years on end.

3. “Mutual grooming is interdependent. Moreover, unlike other primates, chimpanzees engage in social grooming cliques and clusters, which is far more complex than the usual grooming dyad [of other primates] (Nakamura, 2003).” (6)

This is noteworthy because simple, uni-directional grooming establishes a relatively straightforward relationship of greater and lesser. But mutual and social grooming? This class of behavior seems to be a blunt instrument next the precise meaning of dominance relations. Okay, you value our relationships, and we are “in this together.” But what do we expect from one another and in what circumstances. How is this an advance? The instrument becomes many-purposed. But this necessitates an intelligence and capacity for learning the appropriate ways to use it.

The incredible brain growth and intelligence in human evolution was first attributed to advanced tool use. Seeing that hominid tool kits, and, presumably, tool use, varied little over hundreds of thousands of years, that idea has pretty much been discredited. Lately the reasoning for human brain growth has focused on social intelligence. Homo sapiens tend to live in not only larger social groups than other primates, but in groups with vastly more complicated relationships. Like chimpanzees, but more so.

Still, we have yet to take a good look at another very close primate relative: the bonobo, or “pygmy chimpanzee.” That’s where we next turn.

—

(4) Bourne, H., The Ape People, Putnam, New York, 1971.
(5) Power, M. The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, p. 7
(6) McCrew, W. C., The Cultured Chimpanzee: Reflections on Cultural Primatology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 135

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, religion

Is it sexist to observe gender differences in shopping habits? I don’t think so. However, how you talk and write about those differences may cross the line to a smaller degree or larger.

In a news release found over at ScienceDaily, Male and Female Shopping Strategies Show Evolution at Work in the Mall, I encountered this line of reasoning:

In modern terms, women are much more likely than men to know when a specific type of item will go on sale. Women also spend much more time choosing the perfect fabric, color and texture.

Men, on the other hand, often have a specific item in mind and want to get in, get it and get out, Kruger said. It’s critical to get meat home as quickly as possible. Taking young children isn’t safe in a hunt and would likely hinder progress.

Hmm. I wonder. While the above description fits my experience of clothes shopping with my wife, the pattern is nearly perfectly reversed when in a home-improvement mega-store. I could spend an hour in the electrical department alone. My wife, meanwhile, would be grabbing the item on our list and making a bee-line for the check-out. How is that like male hunting and female gathering?

I further wonder whether the perspective expressed in the following paragraph so much explains what has been observed as much as it may manifest a pre-existing sentiment that shaped what was observed and/or guided thinking post-observation.

From an evolutionary perspective, it all harkens back to the skills that women used for gathering plant foods and the skills that men used for hunting meat. The contrast emerges because of the different foraging strategies for hunting and gathering used throughout human evolution.

Although I am a big fan of evolutionary psychology, I think the softly scientific pursuit needs to be done well and presented with due judiciousness.

Personally, I don’t find the above type of science and science writing sexist. It is innocent of any belittling or limiting of one gender type or another. As far as I perceive. However, the discussion does strike me as presenting an over-generalized generalization. Solid science gets specific.

Finally, what most causes me to most doubt the article’s argument is the lack of data. I couldn’t find the source data for the conclusions drawn. How can a critical thinker be confident of any claim lacking a tether to real-world data?

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, sexism

Valerie Talerico is a fairly vocal, non-believing writer who frequently has articles appear on the Huffington Post.

I have read a couple of these recently, and have criticisms about each.

1) When Science Teachers Don’t Believe In Evolution

As an example of positive criticism, I give Valerie an enthusiastic huzzah! for this idea she expresses:

These people, in my mind, worship an idol with clay feet. They don’t worship a Power that is actually great enough to create the intricacies of the natural world, but rather a golden calf called the inerrant Bible or the inerrant Koran. (Call it bibliolatry—text worship. In an age of widespread literacy and printing presses, what better golden calf than a literally perfect book?)

Bibliolatry indeed! Most educated/liberal folk consider this particularly crazy, considering the many versions/translations of the Bible and the many different “holy” books found worldwide. But I wonder: is bibliolatry simply a relatively retrogressive, rigid way of supporting beliefs in a god, and conservative notions of what that god wants?

While god-belief not strictly tethered to the writings in ancient texts may strike some as a “more enlightened” version of religion, this form strikes me as merely better streamlined for acceptance by educated minds. Though the fat has been trimmed away, the rotten meat remains.

2) Like Alcohol, Religion Disinhibits Violence, Doesn’t Cause It

In this article, Tarico argues that religion doesn’t outright “cause” violence, but instead disinhibits it. Like alcohol disinhibits violence.

Here’s the problem: Our thinking about the cause of specific behaviors is tremendously flawed if we persist in attempting to find the cause of some behavior or class of behaviors, verses attempting to identify the causes, plural.

When I taught introductory psychology I would include in my very first lecture this analogy about why seeking simply answers can be problematic and naive:

Think of human behavior as a “spilling of beans.” Akin to the old Milton Bradley game, Don’t Spill the Beans, human psychology spills over into a given behavior not due to a single, causal bean. Instead, there are a number of beans that topple the pot. While we habitually focus on one “bean” as being the most important, or unimportant, this can be deeply misleading.

Consider the reasons, plural, that one person might take the life of another (engage in homicidal behavior): jealously, anger, social stress, fear, self-defense, hormone levels, mental illness, drug use, etc, etc.

Clearly, one reason alone infrequently causes homicidal behavior. Rather, a number of factors are usually involved.

Turning to religion “inspired” violence, it is foolish to insist that religion alone is or is not THE cause. Yet can religion be one of the causal factors? Definitely.

In some circumstances (when combined with other “beans”) religion can be part of the group of factors that result in a person tipping over into violent behavior. To claim otherwise, including arguing that religion merely “disinhibits” a pre-existent tendency, seems to me borderline apologetic folly.

Technorati Links: psychology, religion, violence

[And now for something different. I composed this piece a few years ago as an exercise in creative writing. It fits here to the degree it reflects my skeptical outlook.]

GOOD CITIZEN SAVES 1.6 GALLONS OF WATER

When we bought our house in Florida, we had only a well for water. Our property sat on the very edge of the closest incorporated city. The water was high in rust, but after installing a sediment filter, we liked it just fine. So did our plants and the fish in our goldfish pond.

Sadly, the well was old and soon went the way of old wells. We had to go on city water. I drove to the city utilities department, and there I paid the impact fee, the meter fee, the initial fee, and the water deposit. The secretary handed me a receipt and a poorly photocopied page titled, “25 Things you Can do to Save Water.” On the list–a list obviously put together by some national agency–was such sage advice as, “Keep a bottle of drinking water in the refrigerator. This puts a stop to the wasteful practice of running tap water to cool it for drinking.” In Florida the tap water never gets cold.

There was also, “Stop using your toilet as an ashtray.” This advice is as relevant to me as, say, “stop using your refrigerator as a paper weight.”

The suggestions did get me thinking about my water use, however. Which is spare, to say the least. I don’t even water my lawn. I don’t much care for fence-to-fence outdoor carpeting. Especially a carpet you have to pay to water, fertilize, insecticide and mow to keep looking lush. I like our tidy, little weed patch just fine, thank you. And so do the bugs and lizards and birds and butterflies.

Anyway. I got to thinking about other ingenious ways to save water. Here’s what I came up with.

1. Drink espresso. Coffee is, after all, mostly water, so cut down on the mostly part. Just take smaller swallows so you get the same dose of caffeine and flavor.

2. Break your spitting habit. Whether you play baseball or not, spitting causes you to lose bodily fluids. And it sometimes causes other people to see you losing bodily fluids. Bodily fluids have to be replaced. Which wastes water.

3. Buy condensed soup. Then don’t un-condense it. Instead of having a bowl of cream of tomato soup for lunch, have a pile of tomato pudding.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: critical thinking, humor

In my daydreams, I recently took a Disney cruise not to the Caribbean, but to distant galaxies. I snapped some photos, brought back some souvenirs: it was a great time.

Why explore, why travel? In the least — to entertain ourselves. At best — to increase our first-hand understanding of the world and universe.

Why do we find acquiring knowledge of distant places so attractive, so captivating? Because the new excites more neurons more powerfully than the familiar? Because knowledge is always potential power? I wonder.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: psychology, travel