Friday, June 26, 2020

Banter 58: What does it even mean to be a human?


Sunday, June 28th at 4pm
at Chris' deck (outside only) and via Zoom for those who can't or don't wish to join in person

Back in 2010 our very first banter topic was "What does it even mean to be a human?" Some of us went in the direction of animal vs. human definitions such as: "What are the complications and/or benefits of personifying animals or anthropomorphizing them?  How do you splice the divide between human rights and animal rights?  What are the historical complications (ie, Animals of the Third Reich excerpt) of leveling out human and animal rights if we bring humans down to animals?  Can we bring animals up to humans, why would we?  Why does the definition of what a human is often go scientific or push off of animals, yet not get too intricately into emotional, philosophical approaches to this definition?  Is it even possible to create a definition for a human that is meaningful, comprehensive, and artful?"


I'm curious to see where our 2020 group discussion takes us with this vague question.  We can do a combo of winging it (since most of us haven't come up with materials & since most of us will be out recreating all weekend and not doing much prep work) and diving into the below from those who gave us some direction: 

   
Nia's contribution (not to be confused with Naya):


The group might find this podcast episode interesting, an interview with a woman with autism and ADHD who wrote a book to explain being human to people like her, a kind of manual that she said she would have liked to have growing up: https://futurespodcast.net/episodes/16-drcamillapang
There are a number of podcast episodes from that podcaster that deal with transhumanism, AI, cyborgs, and the future versions of what being human might look like. 


Isaac's contributions:

“Man need not be degraded to a machine by being denied to be a ghost in a machine. He might, after all, be a sort of animal, namely, a higher mammal. There has yet to be ventured the hazardous leap to the hypothesis that perhaps he is a man.” ― Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind




Jared P.'s contribution

In 2019, Congress passed a law prohibiting movies of animal torture and cruelty. https://www.peta.org/blog/pact-act-signed-into-law/

A federal law against animal torture demonstrates an evolving moral sensitivity to the suffering of non-humans. It recognizes a broader sympathy and understanding of suffering that may seek to diminish that suffering--even as life cannot exist without some suffering. Suffering can impel us to act when nothing else can. Here, however, even Congress recognized that some suffering can have no benefit to the life that is suffering. Perhaps humanity's morality is expanding with our abilities to fill our needs without causing that unnecessary suffering, so we have the luxury of stopping some unnecessary suffering. Or perhaps we are seeing more in common with animals than we see in the cold universe outside. Or perhaps this reflects the long arc of history moving closer to justice. 

Sabine's contributions:

Some definitions across eras and fields: https://www.brainpickings.org/2011/12/09/what-it-means-to-be-human-joanna-bourke/

A journalistic piece that my friend Ben Polley wrote a few years ago, and that I helped him edit.  This reminds me of how often our definitions of how we differ from animals (tools, language, property/territory, art/culture) have little to do with what is and mostly to do with what we humancentric creatures don't notice of the other creatures: https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/the_real_twitter_feed_that_we_have_lost_track_of/

Friday, April 24, 2020

Banter 57: Fear and Nativism (the behavior of)

Date: Thursday, May 21st at 6pm via Zoom

Let us discuss the drives behind, purposes of, problems with, and seemingly universal human aptitude for fear & nativism.

With this topic we are ideally trying for getting at how fear & nativism comes up for humans now and historically across varying groups of people, and not just making it about Trumpsters, unless we want to also explore how us pointing at Trumpsters with a sneer is partly us making them into outsiders (outside our own norms and expectations, us being the insiders, in that case, and above such base behavior).  In other words, we are trying to think more broadly about this behavior itself in humans & have sought prep material (see below) via sources that aren’t beholdenly biased to praise for their own echo chamber.


As we said when we chose this as a possible topic, WF and other small mountain towns fearing outsiders bringing in the virus and the rising up behavior to keep em out is one example where liberals show their own cracks with inclusivity (public health issue or not). A small town in Maine took this to an extreme when they chainsawed down a big tree recently to block in a NJ family at the home/driveway they were at, preventing them from getting to town for groceries & making sure they clearly knew they were not welcome. (See novel The Last Town on Earth by Thomas Mullen.) Whether it was right or wrong, can we trace what happens to the mind and group think when gathering up to get that chainsaw, cut that tree, block that family in makes sense?

In sociology, this is called the in-group and out-group. In religious studies, this is referred to as the insider/outsider problem. Every field likely has a trove of inquiries into facets of this, so much has it wreaked havoc on living peacefully for humans (and animals) across the ages.

From a political history perspective (Thanks, Jared!)

“Nativism Across Time and Space” by Hans-Georg Betz, Swiss Political Science Review, 2017. Full article here, beginning right after abstract paragraph: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/spsr.12260

From a religious studies perspective:

20 minute audio interview between two religious studies scholars, “The Insider/Outsider Problem.” https://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/podcast-george-chryssides-on-the-insideroutsider-problem/


From a sociological perspective:

John Turner (developed social identity theory & later self-categorization theory) - lecture about social psychology of ingroup / outgroup: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g3pX3msaA64

From Wikipedia about Turner’s research:
“In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group biasin-group biasintergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-groupover out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.[1][2]
This effect has been researched by many psychologists and linked to many theories related to group conflict and prejudice. The phenomenon is primarily viewed from a social psychology standpoint. Studies have shown that in-group favoritism arises as a result of the formation of cultural groups.[3][4] These cultural groups can be divided based on seemingly trivial observable traits, but with time, populations grow to associate certain traits with certain behaviour, increasing covariation. This then incentivises in-group bias.
Two prominent theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of in-group favoritism are realistic conflict theory and social identity theory. Realistic conflict theory proposes that intergroup competition, and sometimes intergroup conflict, arises when two groups have opposing claims to scarce resources. In contrast, social identity theory posits a psychological drive for positively distinct social identities as the general root cause of in-group favoring behavior.“
More details about Turner & his further development of self-categorization theory which shows the individual within the social group much more clearly than social identity theory had originally allowed: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02091.x

Personal example / case study of a text chain that demonstrates
(Thanks, Anna!)

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1-Sf4_RdbLVR3tj78Cqw6dvKiFmUWFanGBPWKDGTkj-4/mobilebasic

From a Philosophical perspective we might look at Personal Identity (see below) or Group Rights:

Derek Parfit, philosopher, Oxford - two part YouTube video: 


From a literary perspective:

Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall” - https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44266/mending-wall

“The Paper Menagerie,” short story by Ken Liu.  http://a1018.g.akamai.net/f/1018/19022/1d/randomhouse1.download.akamai.com/19022/pdf/Paper_Menagerie.pdf

Popular fiction: The Last Town on Earth by Thomas Mullen.

From a songwriter / musician perspective (Thanks, Annette!):

“This Charming Man” by The Smiths

Possibly Helpful insight about a lyric with the song-

“The line "a jumped up pantry boy, who never knew his place" comes from the movie Slueth(its on youtube). Where Michael Caines character is being confronted for having an affair with Laurence Oliviers characters wife. Oliviers character says to Caine "Youre nothing but a jumped up pantry boy , who never knew his place!" He is making a stab at Caines character for being working class - a pantry boy being a servant working in the kitchen of an English manor house.”

Lyrics-

Punctured bicycle
On a hillside desolate
Will nature make a man of me yet?

When in this charming car
This charming man

Why pamper life's complexity
When the leather runs smooth
On the passenger's seat?

I would go out tonight
But I haven't got a stitch to wear
This man said "it's gruesome
That someone so handsome should care"

Ah ! A jumped-up pantry boy
Who never knew his place
He said "return the ring"
He knows so much about these things
He knows so much about these things

I would go out tonight
But I haven't got a stitch to wear
This man said "it's gruesome
That someone so handsome should care"
La, la-la, la-la, la-la, this charming man
Oh, la-la, la-la, la-la, this charming man

Ah ! A jumped-up pantry boy
Who never knew his place
He said "return the ring"
He knows so much about these things
He knows so much about these things
He knows so much about these things


Second song is “Left of Center” by Suzanne Vega featured one the movie Pretty in Pink.

If you want me
You can find me
Left of center
Off of the strip
In the outskirts
In the fringes
In the corner
Out of the grip
When they ask me
"What are you looking at?"
I always answer
"Nothing much" (not much)
I think they know that
I'm looking at them
I think they think
I must be out of touch
But I'm only
In the outskirts
And in the fringes
On the edge
And off the avenue
And if you want me
You can find me
Left of center
Wondering about you
I think that somehow
Somewhere inside of us
We must be similar
If not the same
So I continue
To be wanting you
Left of center
Against the grain
If you want me
You can find me
Left of center
Off of the strip
In the outskirts
In the fringes
In the corner
Out of the grip
When they ask me
"What are you looking at?"
I always answer
"Nothing much" (not much)
I think they know that
I'm looking at them
I think they think
I must be out of touch
But I'm only
In the outskirts
And in the fringes
On the edge
And off the avenue
And if you want me
You can find me
Left of center
Wondering about you
Wondering about you

From hormone-related / immunological/  psychological perspectives: (Thanks, Isaac!) 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2015.00183/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728892/?report=classic

From a film perspective

Dogville, with Nicole Kidman


Tuesday, April 7, 2020

Banter 56: The Empty Promises of Marie Kondo & the Craze for Minimalism (podcast episode)

Date: Thursday, April 23 at 6pm

Host: Virtual meeting via Zoom (link sent via email)


Topic: The Guardian’s Long Read “The Empty Promises of Marie Kondo & the Craze for Minimalism” (podcast episode). We’ll listen to the podcast together at banter night & then discuss. No prep needed. Full essay below if you’d like to read it: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jan/03/empty-promises-marie-kondo-craze-for-minimalism

See topics voted on here: https://doodle.com/poll/4t3vf2hsiiuixx3g


Monday, January 27, 2020

Banter 55: Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Host: Zoom session due to pandemic
Date: Friday, March 27th at 6pm
Topic:  The group decided on going with a topic that allows us to listen to a podcast episode or TED talk/lecture together at this session, and then discuss the podcast episode/topic after.  We did this the one time with Laughter with much enjoyment. See possible topics voted on below. Final topic voted was Anil Seth’s TED talk “Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality.”  https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality/up-next

Poll for topics:  https://doodle.com/poll/8mqha9fgya44fzzk

Monday, January 13, 2020

Banter 54: Elitism


Topic: Elitism

Date: Saturday, January 25th at 4pm

Chris Holdhusen's house



Becoming interested in the topic of elitism might willfully take us up, down, and under all manner of our habits, tendencies, and limitations with our concepts of social class or groups that we are and aren't a part of; particularly, it seems worth noting, with more and more clarity, our own placement within a social class or various social groups and how that impacts our point of view, behaviors, use of language, and every other aspect of how we see and make our way through interactions, sense of self, and the world.  Some of us will likely be interested in how Trumpsters see liberals as elites, and how this has led to a dismantling of facts, experts, science, academic voices being valued by a large portion of the country and media; others will likely be interested in elitism on smaller scale interactions we have in the aisles of grocery stores or at school drop off/pick up or in other daily social interactions with those in and outside of your social groups/class; and others will be interested in the concept historically, across cultures, philosophically, psychologically, and so on.  Bring all layers of this topic to the table via your contributions below.



Here are some preliminary articles to get started if you want a briefing of how elitism has been used in some of the media lately:  



"Which Force is More Harmful to the Arts: Elitism or Populism?" from the NY Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/books/review/which-force-is-more-harmful-to-the-arts-elitism-or-populism.html





"Americans are Fast to Judge Social Class" in Scientific Americanhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/americans-are-fast-to-judge-social-class1/



Sabine's interest and contribution:


Coming from two sets of grandparents who lived very different quality of lives pre- and post-WWII in Berlin, and later finding myself with one foot in the kitchens of rural Wisconsin dairy farmers (stepmom's family), one foot in the kitchens of my German grandmothers, one hand in the kitchens of the Blackfeet reservation, and one hand in the kitchens that make up a ski town (lofty log mansions to trailers and cabins without enough heat), I have had a sense of how much each set of people are putting their all into the foods they are used to or value or lucked out in having at all.  I've loved being in each one of those kitchens, and have grown my tastebuds on all of it.  


The first time I had a sense of judgment of other people's kitchens it came from my mom distinguishing that we did not eat maple syrup on our pancakes, other people did that; we rolled ours (crepes) in fine sugar. In my mind though, while swallowing my very tasty crepes, I thought of how I very much enjoyed fluffy buttermilk pancakes with loads of Aunt Jemima knock off syrup with my young divorced dad, later with my stepmom's family, at Wisconsin restaurants with my cousins, so I knew that this "we" she was referring to had little to do with what I did eat, but had to do with a group she wanted me to be part of and, conversely, a group she didn't approve of, nor want me to be part of.  


Now, part of this is complicated (as always with human behaviors & rudenesses), as she and my grandparents were grieving a loss of Germany and all things German, and trying to keep hold of that for their families even while integrating into America.  Part of her phrasing had to do with assuring my sense of being German over being American, and part of me is very grateful for that. The other part cringed and planned never to allot people's food preferences as below or above mine.


The second time I came across this off-color sense of judgement in an equally jarring way was at the local Montessori preschool, among mommies who were eliminating sugar for their children, only feeding them organic, requiring it be so also parties, and so on.  I reacted viscerally as though a spoon had gagged me, as well as I felt a flash of anger in defense of all those kitchens I've known whose cooks would not feel anything other than bad about themselves and very snubbed should they be privy to bring an item to such a potluck or preschool bbq or birthday party, only to realize it isn't going to be eaten by this set.  Thankfully these groups rarely cross over, so my rural Wisconsin family or my rez friends haven't been at any Whitefish potlucks or bday parties to experience this elitism.  Yet it is that lack of cross over that is precisely the problem as well.  The lack of weighted, caring awareness of those outside of one's own means, insights, habits, and class is as common among all strata of humans as Wonder Bread and jello wigglers are in rural Wisconsin kitchens.  Marie Antoinette's lack of purview outside of her own context comes to mind as an easy example to clarify what I'm trying to bumble my way through saying:





"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!” Though to be accurate (and elitist in that need for accuracy and awareness of Antoinette being German and French speaking), she said, upon finding out that the peasants had no bread, "Let them eat brioche!" which was even more out of the peasants' reach than the basic bread they couldn't acquire.  "Let them eat organic, stevia or honey sweetened, dye free, heirloom, local, hormone free foods and have the time, insight, different family traditions to do so, so that my child doesn't have to be exposed to what your family has survived on for at least three generations!"  Getting off my own rude soapbox, this does tie into a decent scholarly article titled " Let Them Eat Cake, Caviar, Organic, and Whole Foods: American Elitism, White Trash Dinner Parties, and Diet" which I'll have to email to the group as I only have a pdf and no way of attaching it here on the blog.  



From Chris / Lynda:  

Brainpickings blog, such as:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/12/27/in-praise-of-idleness-bertrand-russell/

or, https://www.brainpickings.org/2019/11/25/the-school-of-life-book/?mc_cid=3342fcd10c&mc_eid=20675c7769

From Isaac: 

"I was looking for something on inequality and civilizational collapse, and found a bunch of stuff suggesting that it was inevitable...but chose to go with this instead.  I listened to the audible version: 


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/02/the-rich-cant-get-richer-forever-can-they?fbclid=IwAR1WGSoPJq95Me90QHBo3_wG8pR0vRmrKQbZ9vzr6dJ2kBXWYV29k5hn_70

Also from the below resource, "Those participants who had spent time thinking about how much better off they were compared to others ended up taking significantly more candy for themselves -- leaving less for the children."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/?fbclid=IwAR1oJJIoeXNlvcGl7pPjVNJwG_HiGeTjj2HzN-cR0YNgZJwMMm_-NsyzVM4


From Mitch: 


‘Elite’, to my ears, is more often used as a positive word than ‘elitist’, which seems has negative connotations (and hints at pomposity and exclusion).


In my field of work hotshot crews are often described as ‘elite firefighting crews’. To me, this is meant in the sense of being highly specialized, well trained, and experienced for their particular niche of work, but many dictionary definitions of elite include words like ’superior’, ‘best’, ‘most powerful’. Those broad, all-encompassing usages of the word have caused me to bristle.

Not to be pedantic, but I’m wondering if the meaning of the word has changed, over time?  

Elite, to me,  is a descriptive and complimentary word to be used to describe others for being  ’specialized’, ‘expert’, ‘highly trained’.…to use it to describe yourself is, well, elitist.

I saw a short video of Richard Dawkins where he made the point that most people want their doctors and pilots to be elite. I want all specialists to be elite, I don’t want them to be elitist.

The first that I heard the word ‘elite’ being used in politics, and always negatively, was during the Obama administration.

Since that time, the word seems to have become code for those who see intelligent and well-spoken political leaders, teachers, experts, and scientists as suspect. To be sure, a lot of elites are pompous asses and snobs, which doesn’t help but, politically, I see the term being used in a new fashion….a ‘my opinion is as valid as your experience and education’ attitude that seems to be getting worse in our society.

I would be interested in discussing the opposite of elite, as well. Are there any good antonyms for the word? I can’t think of a good single term, but there are two tangential topics from the reverse side of the elite coin that would be fun to discuss.  One is the Dunning-Krueger effect (see image, below) and the other is the Galileo Gambit Fallacy (which asserts that if your ideas are met with ridicule from the establishment, that they must be right).
At the risk of falling into Dunning-Kruger myself (if I haven't already), I will close with a quote from the elitist author and professor, Isaac Asimov (what a snob):


The full context for the above quote is in the short article from 1980 (so, it appears, this whole anti-intellectual thing is not such a new phenomena? 

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Banter 53: Evolutionary Psychology (of Shame, of Love, of Empathy...; as a faux science?; etc.)

Sunday, December 8th at 3pm
Host:  Chris Holdhusen 

We went with the broad topic of Evolutionary Psychology but hope that you'll each help narrow this based on what you are interested in within evolutionary psychology, or in showing the problematic aspects of evolutionary psychology.  The associated contribution you make (article, chapter, podcast, reflections of your own, TED talk, etc.) will facilitate this.  Please send your contribution to Sabine via email by Dec. 1.  Those contributions will be posted below.

Some preliminary ideas to get us started thinking about this topic: 

Lecture:  "Evolutionary Psychology: An Introduction" - Dr. Diana Fleischman


Article: "Seven Key Misconceptions about Evolutionary Psychology" by Laith Al-Shawaf, Ph.D.
             https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about-   evolutionary-psychology/


From Sabine:

After having followed an array of pretty solid academic trains of thought (incl. entertaining articles & conversations with a couple of UM profs - Abhishek and also his friend Nathan, a neurobiologist) that debunk evolutionary psychology, I do still have interest in it, but more so from the perspective of what the field might do next to bring itself more up to speed with the methodology that biology and the other sciences assume as standard fare.  I'm also very interested in how a couple of women (well-respected even by the naysayers of EP) are contributing to EP from an interdisciplinary approach.  One is a philosopher, Janet Radcliffe Richards, and the other is  an anthropologist and primatologist, Sara Blaffer Hrdy. Richards says EP isn't all bad, but is certainly asking the wrong questions, but that asking the questions it is at all will help us come up with better questions to ask. Hrdy is a hands on researcher interested in getting at, among other things, becoming more precise as to the sources of human propensity for working together/empathy/sharing; she attests that it has been wrongly assumed by the social sciences for too long that our empathetic/social human wiring derives from survival due to warring conditions that made humans work together in order to succeed more, which led to brains wired to work together more via evolutionary selection, and so on. Hrdy says that our empathy/social human wiring likely derives first from the way early humans raised their children, making us and our predecessors much more like tamarins and marmosets than like chimpanzees and gorillas. Sadly/interestingly, she finds that like tamarins and marmosets we are in such need for social support and shared care of raising children (alloparenting), that when we don't have it, abandoning of newborns, etc. occurs also in humans.  This has never been observed to happen in other primates, except for tamarins and marmosets. Hrdy concedes that warring conditions later in our human history perhaps further solidified this already present social wiring.

One of EP's biggest critics is PZ Myers who is worth listening to here to understand the ways it seems that evolutionary psychologists seem to be often misusing or misunderstanding key principles of evolution. His talk (linked in previous sentence) is long, but I think useful to listen to for a primer in evolution.  Perhaps it would have been best for our group to dive first into readings on evolution, historically and contemporarily, and then take on evolutionary psychology so as to be able to weigh in more informedly on how EPs are using/misusing evolution in their field.  I know that I don't understand evolution enough, particularly where the field of evolutionary research is now, to use it to critique or weigh in on how the evolutionary psychologists are or aren't misusing it.  Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish"concept is helpful in reviewing key concepts of evolution as well, and works particularly well for me since I generally disdain the humancentric approach of all fields, thinking us something special or fairly removed from the line of animals from which we've descended, brain/language/emotions/opposable thumbs/relationships included. PBS did a series on Shubin's concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8ttoKGxEKc

I'm throwing a lot at you here, so if you only have time for a couple of my contributions, these below are the voices I most wish you to hear:

Take a listen to Richards here via some Oxford lectures she gave on sexuality, particularly lecture #3 has to do with evolutionary psychology: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/12/janet-radcliffe-richards-on-the-past-present-and-future-of-sex-part-3/

And, watch Hrdy here giving a short lecture on her book Mothers and Others, which traces why and how humans came to be wired as socially oriented as we are, much more so than other primates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsuuPMUIMEE

For those of you not keen on videos/audio, looking up papers or books by both Richards and Hrdy would be a great approach to hearing them weigh in on this topic too.


Mitch's Submission:


I must start by saying that I’m quite certain that I don’t have a very good grasp on evolutionary psychology. I have read, watched and listened to almost all of Sabine’s extensive background content but may, now, be more confused about what this field is than when I started. My thoughts, below, are, likely, naive, fallacious and full of biases and incorrect assumptions. I am looking forward to learning more on this topic from the better studied in our group.

I haven’t studied evolutionary psychology much. I find some of it fascinating but something about it also makes me queasy.  The focus on nature over nurture. The confusion of correlation and causation. The broad generalizations and uncomfortable, maybe incorrect, conclusions.

Something about it reminds me of the great Douglas Adam’s puddle analogy, which he uses to refute the fine tuning argument for religion, below. It is very short and worth the watch. 



In the case of evolutionary psychology, the merging of those two sciences requires some leaps of faith to the level that it could be used in place of religion in Adam's analogy. Is psychology the puddle, incorrectly believing that it fits perfectly in the evolutionary hole?

Psychology is endlessly exciting, if not a little heavy on conjecture and broad generalizations. Evolution, too, is fascinating, but very linear, logical and lacking some of the creative  passion of its more bubbly extroverted cousin. Combining these sciences is intoxicating, initially.  Like a classical cover of a heavy metal song, it interesting, at first listen. Over time, the novelty wears off and you realize that  the beauty and complexity of the classical, and the power and adrenaline of the metal, are both watered down and worse off with the genre merge. 

It must admit that my discomfort might just be me obstinately holding onto beliefs and desires that I am not yet ready to part with. Many of the concepts of evolutionary psychology seem to circle around questions of free will. It is probably not correct, but I like to think that creatures with complex cognitive abilities are more than the sum of their parts (Not ants. Ants are just biological machines….I am special).  I want to believe that each creature is unique being with a one of a kind personality and the ability to consciously make choices.  I don’t believe in eternal ’souls’ but I like the idea that there is a fire inside of us that, while living at least, is not composed solely of cells and genes and predictable chemical interactions.  The fact that I evolved from an ape doesn’t bother me in the least, it’s kind of cool.  I’m even OK with the concept that every great ape has genetically instinctual fears (e.g., snakes), but the idea that ALL of my thoughts, dreams, desires, passions and fears are similarly evolved disturbs me. Possibly worse, I fear that, in writing that, it is transparent to all that I am making hasty generalizations and may be rejecting an entire valid field of science only because it makes me uncomfortable.

I can’t close without bringing this last item up. I do feel like some of the concepts in evolutionary psychology could be dangerous.  The more uncomfortable conclusions remind me of how the pseudoscience of phrenology was used to fuel racism. 

I try to watch news and opinion from sources with viewpoints different than my own.  In those, I have seen concepts of evolutionary psychology used to justify racism, in particular, but, also, sexual preference and gender discrimination. It’s possible that some groups are putting a dishonest spin on the research to give their bigotry a veil of scientific validity…but they don’t have to stretch as far as I would hope. Dr. Fleishman’s discussion about how narcissism and psychopathy are expected and natural evolutionary adaptations for success in today's world, even if true, is something that society should try to overpower.  If a society can ‘choose’ to overcome individual psychological ‘adaptations’, then is this really evolution at all, or just psychology and sociology?  We could, maybe, hijack the evolutionary process and genetically engineer wings so we can fly…but we can’t think our way into that adaptation.

There is a lot of material out there to discuss on evolutionary psychology and racism, and it’s almost all depressing but, if you are interested, this is a short primer: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201801/the-psychology-racism


Skepticism and curmudgeonliness aside, I do find the topic fascinating.  Who couldn’t like a good mix of psychology, anthropology, biology, sociology and evolution?  The Dr. Diana Fleishman video had excellent content and ideas and I fell, instantly, for her bravery and ability to talk about almost any taboo subject.  I got a chuckle when, about halfway through her presentation, she mentioned that her specialty was ‘disgust research’…well, that explains things. Anyway, I’m looking forward to learning more about this topic from the banter team.


From Isaac:

"Empathy is Tearing Us Apart" - https://www.wired.com/story/empathy-is-tearing-us-apart/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=wired&utm_social-type=earned&fbclid=IwAR0QhO7mucZVlD-1zPB_8khiN0s4CL5lsILM8VtwjhTVEtlHOB-YgjUEfks

Patricia Churchland podcast episode:  
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/06/10/episode-50-patricia-churchland-on-conscience-morality-and-the-brain/

From Jivan:


EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IN A NUTSHELL

"Our psychology has definitely evolved over the millions of years.  Now we are stuck with it.  

Origins of anger and fear.  Long ago it was necessary for our survival to distinguish between an animal to run away from and animal to eat .  If it was an animal to run away from we got scared and ran.  "Oh what do I see in the bushes.  It has ears. Oh.  I remember that animal.  It's a tiger.  I'm scared."  Run away!  If it is an animal to eat if it was a and kill it.  "There is a small edible animal.  What kind is it?  It is a Gazelle.  Run after it.  Get It!  I'm hungry."  If it another human in 
our territory we get angry and think,  "Kill him!  That guy is going to eat my food.  Kill him!"

Origin of love.  You learn to get along with other members of your tribe so you suppress feelings you don't like about them and express feelings you like about them.  This is the beginning of politics.  With individuals it's the same.  I'm attracted to that person.  If I want benefits, I better do the game of suppressing my feelings I don't like about him or her.  This is love.

Origin of empathy.  Empathy is in a different category all together.  It is a beginning of getting unstuck with the way our minds have evolved.  True empathy is not measurable.  If you try to measure empathy you are only measuring what it has to do with what a person is feeling and thinking.  True empathy takes place before feeling and thinking takes over perception.  It happens before we get stuck in the casket of concepts that have evolved.  For example, a sadist knows the other persons thoughts and feelings but has somehow gotten stuck and loves torturing others. Does anyone know how we can experience true empathy?"

From Chris: