Re: The biological goal of the human mind

Jay wrote:

>The biological goal (thought to be about 50% to 80% of behavior)

I like your hokey statistics! It's rather like my "Stalin was 35% wrong!" 
Let me point out your teleological error here: evolution has no goal.

>of the human mind is simply to reproduce the genes that created it.

Which assumes that chemistry --> mind. Have you considered that "mind" or 
consciousness may only exist partially at the biochemical level? For all we 
know about "the mind" (perhaps a little bit more than Descartes, who knows?) 
"mind" may be a series of quantum wave functions.

>For those who are interested in understanding human behavior, here are a 
>few good references:
>
>"The emerging science of molecular biology has made startling         
> >discoveries that show beyond a doubt that genes are the single most    
> >important factor that distinguishes one person from another. We come in 
>large part ready-made
>from the factory.

Notice the mechanistic metaphor. It looks like molecular genetics may really 
be a branch of Newtonian mechanics.

Notice also the denial of developmental biology: we supposedly come 
ready-made from the factory. Actually, before we are born, we are dependent 
on the maternal uterine environment, as well as the influence of biochemical 
gradients: the so-called morphogenetic fields.

>First, explicit evolutionary thinking can
>sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior
>(Symons, 1987). [snip text]
>Stepparents ought to treat their natural and
>stepchildren equally. However, when Daly and Wilson (1980) applied
>evolutionary thinking to the problem of child abuse, they found that
>stepparents were a major source of abuse. There ought not to be conflict
>within families,

Why not? Even in families produced by incest, there is conflict, so the 
argument that genetic investment = harmony is shaky.

We certainly have plenty of social theories that posit conflict as 
"natural." They don't have to rely on genetic interests to do so. Any 
student of social work, family social science, or psych can help you.

>but Trivers (1974) has used evolutionary theory to help us
>understand the within-family conflict that has perplexed us for 
>generations.

Notice the date. 1974. Did Trivers conduct a single study with human 
populations, or just speculate about them? If memory serves, his specialty 
was the social behavior of wolves.

>Second, because the theory of evolution explains the evolution of all >life 
>forms, concepts developed when using it are likely to be very    >general.

Which is a *Big Assumption*(TM). You have bought the core fallacy of 
sociolobiology, hook, line, 'n sinker.

Sociolobiology moves from the general: The theory of evolution by means of 
natural selection...To the specific:Insect and some mammalian studies... and 
then generalizes this data as if it were as applicable to cordates as bugs 
(a small assumption for molecular biologists, perhaps, but a glaringly huge 
one for most animal behaviorists): "If it's true for bugs, it must be true 
for people."

>Kinship theory (Hamilton, 1964), parental investment theory (Trivers, 
>1972),
>sexual-selection theory (Darwin, 1871/1898), and reciprocity theory
>(Trivers, 1971), for example, have been used to explain behavior in a great
>many species of animals.

There are more species of beetles than of any other kind of animal. I can't 
think of a single beetle study. I know of ant, bee, and wolf studies, as 
well as plenty of *speculation* about humans.

>For many, it is intellectually satisfying to use
>the same theoretical framework, such as kin selection, to help explain
>[a multitude of things].

I suppose this is intellectually satisfying to people who have a genetic 
predisposition to like "single-model" explanations. ;) So what? That doesn't 
mean the model generalizable in practice. Theoretical physics is littered 
with "intellectually satisfying" theories that cannot be tested.

>Third, and most important, the theory of evolution can be used to help
>scholars and scientists develop substantive testable predictions about 
> >human behavior. [Many examples snipped].Several chapters in Part III  >of 
>this book discuss recent research in which various aspects of      
> >evolutionary theory were used to derive testable predictions about    
> >human behavior.[pp. 8-10, HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY:
>Ideas Issues and Applications, Eds. Charles Crawford & Dennis Krebs;
>Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998 http://www.erlbaum.com/2621.htm
>
>Jay

Although I am a biologist, I have some skepticism about "evolutionary 
psychology." I work in a mental health agency, and see many mental health 
practitioners using quite diverse theories to treat patients.

Most therapists I work with consider themselves "eclectic" meaning that they 
take a little from theory x, put in a dab or Y, and then use some Z. None of 
them use evolutionary psychology.

They nevertheless produce measurable improvements in their clients lives. 
I'm not sure another layer of "true" psychology would add any rigour to 
their work.

I would also question whether human consciousness can be reduced to 
chemistry, or whether it is in effect an quantum-level phenomenon with its 
own rules or "laws of motion." Regardless of the position one takes on this 
issue, I offered the example schizophrenia, which my Merck Manual tells me 
is a poor fit for either the "it's genetic" or the "it's environmental" 
models. That should illustrate the inadequacy of either genetic or 
environmental reductisms.

John Everett Till



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com