Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Response to Thought Experiment 31: Just So

10/30/2015

3 Comments

 
Picture
This week's thought experiment takes its title from the 1902 book Just So Stories by Rudyard Kipling, published eight years after The Jungle Book. Since these children's stories have been in the public domain for so long, they are freely available on the internet so I thought I'd share the central passage of one to give you a flavour for what they are like. Here is an excerpt from the tale of ​How the Rhinoceros Got His Skin

​"...there was a heat wave in the Red Sea, and everybody took off all the clothes they had. ... the Rhinoceros took off his skin and carried it over his shoulder as he came down to the beach to bathe. ... He waddled straight into the water and blew bubbles through his nose, leaving his skin on the beach. Presently the Parsee came by and found the skin, and he smiled one smile that ran all round his face two times. Then he danced three times round the skin and rubbed his hands. Then he went to his camp and filled his hat with cake-crumbs, ... He took that skin, and he shook that skin, and he scrubbed that skin, and he rubbed that skin just as full of old, dry, stale, tickly cake-crumbs and some burned currants as ever it could possibly hold. Then he climbed to the top of his palm-tree and waited for the Rhinoceros to come out of the water and put it on. And the Rhinoceros did. He buttoned it up with the three buttons, and it tickled like cake crumbs in bed. Then he wanted to scratch, but that made it worse; and then he lay down on the sands and rolled and rolled and rolled, and every time he rolled the cake crumbs tickled him worse and worse and worse. Then he ran to the palm-tree and rubbed and rubbed and rubbed himself against it. He rubbed so much and so hard that he rubbed his skin into a great fold over his shoulders, and another fold underneath, where the buttons used to be (but he rubbed the buttons off), and he rubbed some more folds over his legs. And it spoiled his temper, but it didn't make the least difference to the cake-crumbs. They were inside his skin and they tickled. So he went home, very angry indeed and horribly scratchy; and from that day to this every rhinoceros has great folds in his skin and a very bad temper, all on account of the cake-crumbs inside."

How cute. Like the rest of these tales, this one is obviously intended to mostly just entertain us while perhaps reminding us of the characteristics of some different animals. Let's read this week's thought experiment now and see if it does the same.

​---------------------------------------------------
     "There is not a single piece of human behaviour that cannot be explained in terms of our history as evolved beings," Dr. Kipling told his rapt audience. "Perhaps someone would like to test this hypothesis?"
     A hand flew up. "Why do kids today wear their baseball caps the wrong way round?" asked someone wearing his peak-forward.
     "Two reasons," said Kipling, confidently and without pause. "First, you need to ask yourself what signals a male needs to transmit to a potential mate in order to advertise his suitability as a source of strong genetic material, more likely to survive than that of his competitor males. One answer is brute physical strength. Now consider the baseball cap. Worn in the traditional style, it offers protection against the sun and also the gaze of aggressive competitors. By turning the cap around, the male is signalling that he doesn't need this protection: he is tough enough to face elements and the gaze of any who might threaten him.
     "Second, inverting the cap is a gesture of non-conformity. Primates live in highly ordered social structures. Playing by the rules is considered essential. Turning the cap around shows that the male is above the rules that constrain his competitors and again signals his superior strength.
     "Next?"

Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 91.
---------------------------------------------------

I'm sure Baggini doesn't think this is equivalent to claiming there are cake crumbs tickling rhinoceroses from their insides, but he does have this to say in his explanation of the experiment he apparently penned himself:

​"Evolutionary psychology is one of the most successful and controversial movements in thought of the last few decades. ... The controversy concerns just how far you can take this. The more zealous evolutionary psychologists claim that virtually every aspect of human behaviour can ultimately be explained in terms of the selective advantage it gave our ancestors in their Darwinian struggle for survival. If you buy into this, it is not difficult to come up with plausible sounding evolutionary explanations for any behaviour you choose. ... The trouble is that this suggests these are not genuine explanations at all, but "just so" stories. Evolutionary psychologists simply invent "explanations" on the basis of no more than prior theoretical commitment. But this gives us no reason to believe the accounts they offer rather than any other piece of speculation. ... Evolutionary psychologists are well aware of this criticism, of course. They argue that their accounts are much more than "just so" stories. For sure, they may generate hypotheses by indulging in the kind of speculation exemplified by Kipling's off-the-cuff explanation. But  these hypotheses are then tested. However, there seem to be serious limits on how far testing is possible. ... [P]sychological and anthropological studies could show whether males in different cultures make public displays of their strength, as evolutionary psychologists would predict. What you can't do, however, is test whether any particular behaviour, such as inverting one's baseball cap, is a manifestation of this tendency to display strength or is the result of something quite different. The big argument between evolutionary psychologists and their opponents is thus mainly concerned with how much can be explained by our evolutionary past."

This is nonsense. If Baggini can find an evolutionary psychologist who would actually purport such a simple-minded analysis as his Dr. Kipling, then I'll join him in damning that person's logic. But any serious scientist I've read on this subject would also admit that wearing a baseball cap the right way around could display the intellectual strength of the ability to use tools correctly for a purpose that would enhance one's survival. Wearing the cap the right way around may also signal allegiance to one social group over another, which the individual believes is a more advantageous group to identify with (baseball cap conservatives rather than rebels in this case). So either baseball cap option could be "explained" from an evolutionary perspective, but that's precisely the point. We've evolved to have the power to choose from among a range of options to find the right ones that work for the survival of life over the long term. The main thing in evolutionary studies—psychology in this case, or philosophy in mine—is that we human animals can only draw from the range of all the forces that shaped us over our evolutionary history. Those are the choices we have for explaining and analysing why certain choices may be made. What other forces could be at play?

Sure, evolutionary zealots could go too far. But the history of philosophers inventing religious motivations of supernatural origin shows they are much more likely to contain "just so" stories than any modern sophisticated evolutionary thinker. Baggini may be able to find straw men out there who have naively acted like his Dr. Kipling, but that's all they'll be. Straw men. Straw men who got that way because one day they were playing in a barn when they took out and shook out their bones we could look at.....

3 Comments
atthatmatt link
10/30/2015 06:24:57 pm

I don't follow your response to Baggini. I follow that you think he got something wrong, but I'm not clear on what that something is.

Reply
@EdGibney link
11/1/2015 06:43:59 pm

Okay then, to spell it out more I'm saying Baggini's example of Dr. Kipling is a straw man of the type of evolutionary "explanation" that is clearly too narrow, but we all know it's too narrow. That doesn't warrant his conclusions:

"Evolutionary psychologists simply invent "explanations" on the basis of no more than prior theoretical commitment. ... For sure, they may generate hypotheses by indulging in the kind of speculation exemplified by Kipling's off-the-cuff explanation."

Those are characterisations of a field that would be deemed rude by its sophisticated users. He doesn't seem to understand EvoPsych. Then he also says:

"What you can't do, however, is test whether any particular behaviour, such as inverting one's baseball cap, is a manifestation of this tendency to display strength or is the result of something quite different."

Well, (a) no shit sherlock, but (b) what exactly is this "something different"? If he thinks it's something that comes from outside of our evolutionary past, then he hasn't been paying attention to the history of scientific discovery.

When he says:

"The big argument between evolutionary psychologists and their opponents is thus mainly concerned with how much can be explained by our evolutionary past."

He doesn't seem to see that ALL of it can be explained, in the big picture sense, but sure, the details of many choices aren't forced by one evolutionary explanation or another. People in the field aren't claiming that. But this doesn't mean evolutionary history has nothing to say about our choices, just that we've evolved to have choices about which biological and social urges we want/get to follow (which are all placed into context by the study of evolutionary selection pressures).

Reply
atthatmatt link
11/1/2015 07:52:06 pm

Yeah, okay. It does seem like he's pointing out a couple things 1) some people are overzealous and 2) psychology is a soft science. Neither of those things are news to anyone and it's disingenuous of him to avoid coming right out and clearly stating that he thinks evolutionary psychology is fairly characterized as overzealous soft science.

It's lazy to attack the weakest part of a subject and then dismiss the whole thing. I'm left with the impression that, like you said, he doesn't actually know anything about EvoPsych. He just heard some stuff, decided it wasn't worth learning about, and pretended that he could fill in the rest for himself. For example, he didn't use anything actually from EvoPsych, like an existing theory or thought experiment. He didn't use an anecdote from an actual EvoPsych lecture or debate. He didn't even use a real conversation he had with someone explaining EvoPsych.

I don't get the impression he is appealing to anything outside of evolution. I think he's just saying that it's absurdly difficult to prove causation when a question is as fuzzy as "why did that guy wear his hat backwards." Which is true. But it's not a sufficient rebuttal of EvoPsych because it's just a general problem all scientific disciplines have to one extent or another.

I'd disagree with his summation. I think the biggest disagreement between evolutionary psychologists (ie people who build experiments around EvoPsych thinking) and everyone else is whether or not the behaviors they're testing even need to be tested. EvoPsych doesn't go off to the frontier and come back with strange wonders. Instead EvoPsych digs around in the backyard and points out how many ecosystems can be found in a handful of dirt if you look hard enough. Most people think if dirt as inherently too "obvious" to be something they can learn from. And those are only the people interested in learning.

I agree that the EvoPsych assumptions are highly relevant to subjects like philosophy. The mechanisms that EvoPsych tries to study are the very ones that people appeal to when they make moral and ethical decisions. If you can explain how some perceived moral axiom is actually just a genetic anomaly you threaten an awful lot of people.

It reminds me of an article I read that was written by a transgender woman -> man after she started testosterone hormone therapy. She said that she suddenly understood why guys are ALL ABOUT tits and ass. With that much testosterone flowing through her system she saw booty in a whole different light. If our psychology is that dependent on evolved systems then how much of "I" is really independent of it? What if we don't even have a personality outside of the chemicals that happen to be present in our blood?

People don't acknowledge and don't like the idea that all of the stuff they don't think about is doing all of their thinking for them.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    RSS Feed


    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012


    Click to set custom HTML
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.