Evolutionary Psychology - Science topic

Just looking at the content of your study, I assume you are aware to be cautious of the Garden of Forking Paths (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf).

And why are you worried about a label? Do you think the statistical procedure correlation can't be done with a quasi-experiment. It would be better be better if you wrote the statistical model you plan to estimate and/or show a graph of the variables and their hypothesized influences on each other.

Since none has answered the question, may I suggest a Brittanica link?

https://www.britannica.com/science/behaviour-genetics

Sorry in adavance if it can't be of any help to you?:)

I'm just reading about the scandal too. Many thanks and best wishes.

Hi what exactly is your question about terrorism

Not really. But you might get an idea how to measure that through a paper from Baumeister & Vohs 2004 (Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions).

Good luck!

Hi Nicolas,

There is a book that in my view backs up the spiral dynamics model, but maybe not in a strictly empirical way (if that's what you are looking for) by 'proving' that the model is historically accurate and that evolution 'in fact' happened this way. (The assumption of an 'objective truth' that could be discovered by empirical evidence is itself problematic.) The book is :

Chapman, Kelly (2015). Complexity and Creative Capacity. Rethinking knowledge transfer, adaptive management and wicked environmental problems. New York – London: Routledge.

It shows in general terms that the current global system evolves towards a higher (emergent) level of complexity and that we reach a point in which all previous (more stable, linear) systems are converging into a planetary interconnected complex (non-linear) flow of subsystems, leading to a new, specifically global dynamics.

In terms of system dynamics this may be the same as stating that the first tier systems converge and we enter a phase of 'second tier' dynamics. Chapman describes the process ontology and cocreative epistemology that will allow us to deal with complex challenges (incorporating e.g. 'indigenous knowledge'). The book does not literally refer to system dynamics, but as a reader I found it useful to link both approaches and explore similarities.

@ Kelly Chapman

It is always repeating the same in different way

Interesting answers.

I agree with Mr.MacGregor

Hey Zhi-Teng! Thanks for your reply! To explain myself a little better: I was thinking in terms of websites that are focused on project collaboration, rather than more general networking and work-sharing sites

How is a male's persistent and dominant sexual interest in female children an evolutionary advantage? First of all, "persistent and dominant" implies that somewhat older females are of lesser or even no interest, which limits opportunities for potential reproductive partners. Secondly, a restriction to partners of pubertal age has less chance for reproductive success because of a higher incidence of mortality for both mother and child at or shortly after a birth. Moreover, puberty does not coincide with full reproductive maturity: the females are not fully grown and intercourse can result in physical injury, and those females that do have "successful" pregnancies may produce less milk, their newborns may be underweight, less robust, etc.

I feel like my area is neither here nor there. I'll stick to what I have. Thank you Eleanor. 

OK, seems like pretty basic stuff I'm going to get back to. Thanks for your help.

There are several guidelines and recommendations on how to conduct clinical experiments. I think that it is not necessary/reasonable to restrict your search on Southeast Asians, there is probably no need to use/develop unique guidelines when working with these samples. Standard guidlines for clinical research on humans should be sufficient.

Have you looked at the following website: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ramsay/gay-lesbian-bisexual-suicide-studies-europe.htm

Rafael: sugiro-lhe fazer a sua busca utilizando antes a expressão «social anxiety», ou eventualmente «anxiety disorders», que são expressões mais abrangentes e sobre as quais existe alguma (mas não muita) literatura numa perspectiva evolucionista. Eu evitaria o termo «timidez» («shyness»), visto que é sobretudo utilizado pelo senso comum, o que o conduzirá a artigos de vulgarização, sem dúvida interessantes, mas não necessariamente rigorosos de um ponto de vista científico. (Por exemplo: o editorial de opinião de Susan Cain, no The New York Times de Junho de 2011, intitulado «Shyness: Evolutionary Tactic?»)

To elaborate point 2 of my initial post:

Say, we have a movie-rating going from 1 to 10. Looking at some example ratings of two movies, we see one, saying a mean rating of 7.5 (movie A), an other rating says its 8.2 (movie B). But while 2704 users rated movie A, only 7 rated movie B. Obviously, the second movie (B) has a stronger vulnerability to outliers. A bad rating of 1 point, added to the mean, would hardly change the rating of movie A but will surely change the rating of movie B.

Weighing the rating by the ammount of users ratings, gives the rating of movie A a greater credibility but there is no (real) correlation between the weight and the rating.

There is a negative correlation of the weight with the error of the mean but that should be obvious.

When the weight has (let's say a positive) correlation to the dependent variable (rating) then it would mean that the stronger the weight, the better the score. This should be easily refutable by finding two movies (a good and a bad one) that are very prominent (thus having great number of ratings and thus as strong weight) and those two movies ratings not moving closer to each other by increasing their numbers of ratings.

The Chaudhuri et al. paper reference is as follows:

Conspicuous consumption orientation: Conceptualisation, scale development and validation

H Roy Chaudhuri, S Mazumdar, A Ghoshal

Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10 (4), 216-224

The scale seems somewhat culturally specific, would be interesting to explore / adapt to different societal settings..

I feel the same Luca Valera. You're assuming the theme of "phenomenal experience of objectivity" as a presupposition of moral judgments ....

An approach to "People, rationality and time" Parfit in chapter "Rationality and reason" would be nice. Although if your preocupaación is indeed by demarcate the issue of objectivity of moral judgments, the recommendation is "The idea of Justice" A.Sen 2nd part. "Forms of reasoning"

We completed recruitment, thank you for all answers,

Piotr

Except that is an oversimplified view of what and how people remember. I think what you are trying to say is that memories of certain events have greater psychological/physiological impact than others, which is true. However, Valence (positive vs negative), is only one dimension of events and their memories. Arousal, recency, centrality of event for one's identity, and current mood, are all factors that determine what memories are more easily accessed. Being at risk of being eaten by a sabertooth is a life-threatening situation. Thus differing markedly from other negative, non traumatic experiences. In our times the situation would be analogue to be put a gun in front of your face during a robbery. Thus, this event is unique, highly stressful/arousing , not "simply" negative. And it activated a fear response that becomes conditioned. It is different from other negative events (ie., finding that the ATM is broken) in a number of dimensions. I think what you are trying to say is that memories of certain events have greater impact than others, and this is only partly determined by their valance. Negative events have greater likelihood to provoke higher arousal, but that does not mean we are bombarded by  memories of these events later on (only you suffer from a psych disorder such as PTSD). Memories of positive events are easily remembered in healthy populations.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.838  Highly emotional memories might be easily accessed when the memory becomes relevant for your current context, regardless of their valence.   The 1:5 ratio is an incomplete explanation of real cognitive activity. It is like the magic number 7  + - 2 for chuncking....It is true, but only a partial truth

Hi Louis,

I live in Australia, and so am quite familiar with Bower birds, (although there aren't any on the west coast, where I currently live).

Interestingly, some Bower birds do more than accumulate brightly coloured objects to decorate their love nests.

Many use a sophisticated artistic technique called "forced perspective" and, ranking the objects they collect by size, they create an optical illusion so that to the potential mates observing them, they appear larger, and so (presumably) more attractive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective

The males that do this most effectively appear to be more successful in securing mates.

.

Obviously spending all this time and effort making and decorating a gorgeous display ground, unconsciously incorporating optical illusions, and then dancing and singing in the resulting love-nest, does not contribute to the survival of the male bird's offspring at all.

It just attracts mates that allow him to have offspring in the first place.

It is not necessary for the bird to consciously understand what he is doing. The male birds that make the best use of design, colour and perspective have the most offspring, and selection pressures ensure those birds end up dominating the population. It's a Darwinian basis to art! (But let me say, I don't assume it explains ALL artistic endeavor).

In fact this is a classic example of sexual selection, where males make costly sacrifices to demonstrate their fitness to any females who are prospective mates and who happen to be listening.

Like a peacock's tail, all this effort is most likely an example of Zahavi's "Handicap principle",

( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle).

Male Australian Lyre birds have extravagant tails, and build dancing/display grounds for themselves, and they also imitate other bird songs (or anything else they happen to hear) to impress the lady Lyre birds...

.

In an earlier comment you mentioned dance. I suspect that this sort of movement may have been very significant in human evolution.

Animals frequently expend energy unnecessarily, and typically this is done to signal their fitness to other animals,. Zahavi's famous example was certain species of antelope that jump high in the air, on the spot, (rather than fleeing) when they see or smell a lion or other predator.

The exuberant jumping tells the lion that;

a) this antelope already knows the lion is there, and

b) not to bother chasing this particular antelope, as it obviously has plenty of energy to spare, and could run all day if it wanted.

Animals frequently waste time, energy and other resources to signal messages  to their potential predators, rivals of their own species, or possible mates. 

To anthropomorphise, the message pretty much every time is "Hey, look how fit I am, I can do this for no reason!"

The signal is either, "I am not an easy victim, go and bother someone else ", or else it is "I am a supremely healthy individual, you should mate with me". And the more costly a signal such as this is, the more valid it appears to the target.

If the signal is effective, the apparent "waste" of energy is actually highly adaptive and so it will be selected for and the behaviour will become more common. . 

In a similar fashion, many male animals engage in some form of unnecessary ritualised movement to attract the attention of potential mates. Various species of Birds of Paradise have males that not only display costly and extravagant plumage (just like peacocks and Lyre birds) but that also engage in extremely complex mating dances.

.

Here's a male Bower bird doing his love-dance (apologies for the cheesy voice over);

Louis, I suspect that you have pointed to something crucial in human evolution by mentioning dance.

Raising a human child is a collaborative effort.

The ability to dance fluidly with a partner is not just a demonstration of your personal physical ability, it is also a demonstration of your ability to cooperate and synchronize movements, and more importantly to empathise, to compromise and make allowances, and then to act in concert with your partner.

In early human societies I would suggest that males who could dance well with you were quite possibly damn-good prospective mates. They either cared about you deeply, or were capable of acting as though you were equal partners even if they didn't. 

I can imagine this sort of sexual selection encouraging rapidly and increasingly complex ritual, musical expression, decoration and display.

So (from an evolutionary psychologist's point of view), it might appear that art, ( or aesthetic endeavor of any kind), is just  a ploy (when enacted by us males of the species)  to get laid. Please discuss.

:)

Kind regards,

Paul, (yeah, I got swag) Dessauer.

Arrogance could at least be some kind of threatening gesture / display behaviour against others.

"Psychometric Note: Arrogance has been operationally defined, for better or worse, using a facet of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, so arrogance is not the same as narcissism..."

Well... OK... personality factors... and obviously it is not the same like narcissism. However... evolutionary fitness...

Let's assume it is a threating gesture. And let's furthermore assume it  maybe has something to do with group behavior. Why then not assume it could be some kind of in-group thing dependend on ones status one wants to reach. In that case: The lower ones status and the higher the status one wants to reach the more arrogance is shown torwards other group members.

Cost-benefit: Reaching a high status without investing in stuff like self-improvment (skills, education etc.). Protection against downward social movement. Which could (if this is right) explain why there is always some trouble with self-esteem. Arrogant people could indeed be less competent dependend on the dimension they compare themself with people with a status they want to reach.

Arrogant people could for example also show a higher tendency when it comes to free riding (not really interested, rather passiv). However torwards authority they could be more active.

"You would have to differentiate between self-ascribed arrogance and perceived arrogance."

Could be a problem one could somehow solve... When it comes to perceived arrogance I would rather ask something like if a person was perceived as most nonprototypal... less the leader... Because the trouble with arrogant people is indeed that their behaviour is perceived as bothersome and unpleasent.

In that case: The higher a persons status compared to other group members and the less input the more arrogant a person is perceived.

The lack of an r-scale has been a sore spot for some in our research group for some time. I know of no such measure. I would also be careful of mixing proximate psychological processes with less proximate LH outcomes. The Copping et al. (2014) criticism, makes a valid point regarding the relationship between psychometric measures and biometric indicators (I think that the outright dismissal of self-report measures is simply wrong, but I can see how one can have that approach ).

I know that AJ's preferred method is using the MiniK, TIPI, SF36, and HKSS to create a "SuperK" factor, but that doesn't address your question. Unfortunately, most of the research on r/K is done on college student or volunteers, which will tend toward being slower almost by definition. 

I'm kind of rambling, so I'll stop. I do think the question is a great one and someone should definitely get on it (benchmarking it against the K measures).

 As an aside, you can find a recent meta analysis of the Mini-K in the attached link. 

 Raf

I would contact Alexander Todorov, Department of Psychology, Princeton University. He has daabases of faces varying on many dimensions including attractiveness. See: http://tlab.princeton.edu/

Though trained in traditional philosophy of law, I find your question to be perfectly appropriate.  The explosion in studies of brain function have identified the ability of humans to think in an "as-if" mode, which in effect gives them the ability to postulate alternative realities.  If that is what happens when humans create legal systems, the findings of psychology in this realm may turn out to be of great importance, and traditional legal philosophy may have to rethink itself.  Your previous question about anthropological studies may not go far enough. 

Atracttivity involve physical and mental characteristics. Some articles can help you about you question, i´ll send, saving better opinion.

I hope I helped you.

Kind regards.

The topic is very interesting and complex. An example that might be useful, concerns one of the first experiments conducted by Harry Harlow on maternal deprivation in rhesus monkeys (around 1958). Some of the monkeys used in this experiment, once grown, developed character disorders and, once introducted (or re-introducted) in the peer group, were marginalized and - sometimes - physically abused by the other monkeys. In addition, recent studies underlines how monkeys with character disorders are driven away their group, most of the times before puberty.

Maybe this articles might be useful (at least for a “first step”):

- Harlow H.F., Dodsworth R.O., Harlow M.K. (1965), Total social isolation in monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Jul 1965; 54(1): 90–97. (you can find it here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC285801/)

- Gabbard, G..O. (2005), Mind, Brain, and Personality Disorder. Am J Psychiatry, 162:648-655. (here: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=177446)

By process of perception

Neuroscience has superceded the earlier initiatives to create objective metrics of happiness (e..g, Ekman's facial expression of emotion) with complex neuroimaging techniques. Nevertheless we still have a challenge in operationalizing the constructs of well-being, positive affect and happiness. Conceptual argument is required to ensure clarity in our further investigations of these topics. Arguably, psychology is still limited in the level of conceptual analysis that is pursued, at least in the published discourse (see Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis. (Machado, Armando; Silva, Francisco J.

American Psychologist, Vol 62(7), Oct 2007, 671-681. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.7.671).

probably wont answer all your questions but it's a start.

I am a living case in point... When I was unwell my hospital notes show me stating many times that the water had made me sick, this was seen evidence of psychosis. 6 weeks later it was discovered I was physically run down due to giardia which I had contracted during the last part of my pregnancy. Night sweats and teeth grinding had caused broken sleep and broken teeth (hence mercury exposure). While disrupted digestion probably had caused poor nutrition absorption and depletion, especially after a c-section and two weeks of feeding baby.

Not once did a doctor or family member apologize for not picking up the prenatal distress, not believing me while in hospital or even acknowledge I was correct after the fact. The impact of the m/h diagnosis was a year where I could hardly remember my own name, breastfeed or enjoy my baby due to medication, negative power shifts in my marriage, loss of self esteem and self belief as well as career. I am sharing this not for pity but to give mental health professionals an idea of the cascade of impact when a simple organic cause is overlooked. I was lucky it was 20 years ago or I could probably add obesity, diabetes and heart failure to the impact list. Huge prices to pay for a small amoeba that could have been sorted with a single dose of medication.

Perhaps we ponder death more than other species or at least some of us do. Elephants often return to touch the bones of their deceased, ultimately we have no idea what they are thinking as they touch the bones.

@Frans 'The essential difference between human beings and all other species is that we can communicate about things that are not perceivable on the spot.'

Animals and insects can communicate about things not perceivable on the spot, Bees being the best example that I can think of, they communicate to others how to find a flower patch they have just visited when they return to the hive.

If you already register your intended study before it is carried out, you run the risk that someone else steals your idea and is the quickest of the two. Apart from that risk (which could be avoided, I think), it seems a good idea for empirical studies. For reviews and theoretical studies a different set of identifying features seems necessary.

Van Gogh had a poor social life because of his lack of social intelligence.Picasso had a great number of social relationships and a wide area of social influence because of his social intelligence (S.I).Dali was a remarkable self-advertiser because of his S.I.So...you cand link S.I to creativity and you will have an artist promoting his art end enoying the benefits or u can leave only the creativity, without the S.I and u will have an artist unable to promote himself, isolating himself and with small chances of being recognized during his lifetime, who will eventualy die poor and lonely.

Hi Gunjan,

Thanks for replying and the references, I'll check them out.

On RFT, could you tell me what 'good links to evotionairy psychology' are, keeping in mind RFT is a functional contextual theory? Same for 'good' mathematical models and so on? Are they needed to explain, predict and influence human behavior (the main goal of RFT)? IMHO cognitive theories are pseudoscientific: their mechanistic background leads to the creation of theoretical models that lack independent variables, and can therefore not be transformed into testable hypotheses.... RFT on the other hand has a steady growing body of empirical evidence comming from true experimental designs.

Also, RFT takes an a-ontological stance, the questions eliminatvism and representationalism deal with are, in terms of radical behaviorism and behavior analysis, pseudoproblems (see Churchland's Matter and Consiousness) because they deal with ontology. IMHO RFT is not stuck between elimn or repres, but it's just something completely different. :-)

But......I do agree that a better link between RFT and evolutionairy psychology is there but we've just haven't found it yet. That's why I asked the question regarding empirical evidence on memetics, I think RFT can explain the psychological mechanism of memetics (an idea has more infectuous power when it leads to more transformation of stimulusfunction, and when it applies more relational frames, or something like that).

Best,

Marco