Quick evolutionary interjection Gregg-

To me, it is utterly ironic that the brain that creates and conducts
reason, science and logic seek hopelessly to apply the same
set of mental frameworks to understand its own irrationality.  Achieving
that goal is, at best, only sometimes possible.

One way to make sense is to surmise that perhaps in many irrationalities
there underlies a rationality that transcends our minds.
An evolutionary explanation of  love, for example, by most seen as
irrational, is pair-bonding that leads to survival of offspring.  Birds
dancing in unison serves the same purpose and has no other rational
explanation.

So in couples' counseling, sometimes aggression/control can be seen as
having, ultimately, a rational impetus as part of a
genetic repertoire of behavioral options for spousal manipulation/control
to reinforce the contract of the pair bond.  It is of course also
rational to understand that alternative means may be more effective.

I'm not sufficiently schooled in the history of evolutionary psychology to
stand firm here on this, and the testability criticism weakness
(appropriately) in  my view the "instant validation" of the evolutionary
explanation, however, a systematic analysis of dysfunctional behavior that
begins with the analysis of the couple as part of the larger sociological
set to which they belong, and to the species to which they belong,
tells us that as a bonded, married couple, they are best understood as
being a couple that belongs to a species whose members not merely sometimes
partake in serial monogamy, promiscuity, parental investment; that the two
genders are expected to have different investment strategies, with
distinctly different evolutionary stable strategies being expected in the
gender, indeed the same person at different times in life,
depending on many cues.

It is not to belittle the human mind or the species to acknowledge the
evolutionary legacy that gives us these complex organs a starting point.

There is, then the reality that we recently have come through an amazing
but shallow history shifting us from hunter/gatherer tribes in small
populations to increasingly larger populations with a decreasing role of
small group dynamics; potential mates are no longer rarer, and in our
cognitive hyperplasticity phenotype we see that we are adaptable to new
norms and laws so we can learn that wife-beating, for example, is wrong;
society may provide alternative cues that tell men (or abusive women) that
it's not unusual, and police responses can misguide men (or women) into a
pattern by misaligning the cues to which they respond, triggering further
abuse or dysfunction.  These environmental inputs matter more than defining
situational context; they provide the E in the G x E interaction of human
cognitive phenotypic hyperplasticity without resorting to reductionism.

The phenotype of cognitive flexibility has a rational ultimate basis in
evolution; those who fail to adapt to societal norms being taken out of the
gene pool via imprisonment, death, shunning... we can begin to grasp a
comprehension of the otherwise incomprehensible without for a moment saying
that we are subject to any particular fate by our genes.


On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 7:51 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Lee,
>
>
>
>   My analysis of the BEVI is complicated. Moreover, I no longer work much
> with Craig Shealy, and I know it as evolved some, but I can’t really
> comment much on where it is or respond to these questions with any
> authority.
>
>
>
>  But I do have some thoughts about these issues. From where I sit (i.e.,
> my scientific, humanistic metapsychology theory of knowledge) I sometimes
> find that you attempt to apply a model of scientific realism to all domains
> of human belief, but that feels to me inadequate. Indeed, much of human
> activity, engagement, fighting about what is real, take place in domains
> that are not amenable to being analyzed via a scientific realist
> onto-epistemology. The reason is because the onto-epistemological
> belief-value subjective networks are all tied up with the issue at hand.
>
>
>
>   Here is blog that gets at what I mean that enters the world of couple’s
> therapy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201504_your-2Dversion-2Dreality-2Dand-2Dmine&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lhaBGK2LX7aK2UmOFg-A_U3Oe-9d-sgiYPcjVv8P1nI&s=MBmX823KaeKpPx6fL78IBov0_rUZFhVCpLyk6dcYYtM&e= >.
> Note, it incorporates Shealy’s Version of Reality concept that was
> discussed in that paper.
>
>
>
>   I agree that a scientific realist onto-epistemology can provide a frame
> for the couple. But I don’t think it is adequate for much of the work. Take
> the husband’s claim: “You are a liar”. Is that a fact that corresponds to
> reality? I don’t think there is a simple answer here (e.g., a case could
> easily be made that the wife exaggerated and misrepresented and sometimes
> “lied”, but does that justify the trait-based claim? What is the reality
> here? It is not like the shape of the Earth). This is why I think you need
> more of a humanistic, values-based, relational developmental social
> construction of reality frame to deal with issues like this. The reality of
> the relationship is constructed by their actions and justifications. Thus,
> the observer of an independent reality that is the supposition of a
> scientific realism does not work very well in everyday, idiographic,
> interpersonal engagements. I am guessing that this is why the
> professional/practicing psychologists found your very interesting take to
> be insufficient to deal with the subjective and value-based intersubjective
> domains that are so apparent in the therapy room.
>
>
>
>   Love to get your take on this.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Leland Beaumont
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:50 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Reevaluating Beliefs
>
>
>
> Thanks Rob,
>
> I enjoyed watching your google talks video (twice!) I am looking forward
> to your forum presentation.
>
>
>
> At 39:50 in the video you use the phrase “useful truth” and then go on to
> say that “truth is weird”.
>
>
>
> In my “seeking real good” talk I stated that “truth corresponds to
> reality”. I also mentioned that reality is vast, complex, and dynamic.
>
>
>
> When we get a chance, I would like to discuss the distinctions between
> “useful truth” and “correspondence to reality” especially in considering
> the question of “Where was Barack Obama born?”
>
>
>
> Gregg, thanks for the EI, BEVI paper; it is very helpful.
>
>
>
> I notice the paper lacks explicit reference to reality as a primary and
> unifying frame of reference for acquiring, assessing, and accepting or
> rejecting beliefs. On page 95 it is claimed the counselor has an “…ethical
> obligation to adopt client's values and beliefs.”  I argue there is an
> obligation (perhaps even more compelling) to assess and influence those
> beliefs toward true beliefs, consistent with our best understanding of
> reality. Also the 10 process scales from the BEVI lack an item for
> "cognitive contact with reality" – reflecting the relevance of empirical
> evidence in forming beliefs. (e.g. I believe the earth is nearly spherical
> because in fact (based on the correspondence to reality, learning that
> expert exploration of the earth provides representative evidence that the
> earth is nearly spherical) the earth *is * nearly spherical.) (P99) It
> also does not (explicitly) address "personal epistemology" –what is the
> process you use to choose your beliefs.
>
>
>
> Eric, thanks for identifying the importance of Post-Traumatic growth.
>
>
>
> Lee Beaumont
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *easalien
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2020 6:16 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Reevaluating Beliefs
>
>
>
> Hey Leland, Having been on both sides of the equation, I can say change is
> often a response to trauma, real or perceived. It’s a form of adaptive
> behavior driven by adverse circumstances. Very rarely do comfortable people
> change.
>
>
>
> Most of you I’m sure have heard of PTSD. The other side of that is
> Post-Traumatic Growth. This article sums it up nicely:
>
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.scientificamerican.com_beautiful-2Dminds_post-2Dtraumatic-2Dgrowth-2Dfinding-2Dmeaning-2Dand-2Dcreativity-2Din-2Dadversity_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lhaBGK2LX7aK2UmOFg-A_U3Oe-9d-sgiYPcjVv8P1nI&s=DLqXrxMDvg8JC8i9dPpcW_0JKeqAwRditnq_l6ZeYto&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.scientificamerican.com_beautiful-2Dminds_post-2Dtraumatic-2Dgrowth-2Dfinding-2Dmeaning-2Dand-2Dcreativity-2Din-2Dadversity_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=FE9YjbAkxcapLo-BOfWURIZDgaGBWZfogomrcPeIbAA&s=4tUV_boJFf2CL2mhoj_hZSXigbj4OUass2CL2U93atY&e=>
>
>
>
> With the clusterf*ck that is 2020, cherished beliefs are challenged and
> people are retreating into entrenched ideologies or opening up to the
> truth, which must be experienced a posteriori. Otherwise, it’s like a
> scholar “explaining” war to a veteran. It rings hollow.
>
>
>
> Personally, abandoning unverified belief in exchange for verifiable truth
> has brought a remarkable sense of balance. It’s taught me empathy and
> gratitude as well as peace with uncertainty. With the world as it is, maybe
> we need to take our philosophy and let it go.
>
>
>
> Eric S.
>
>
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020, Leland Beaumont <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> ToK Forum Members,
>
> Intrigued by questions that were raised when I presented Seeking Real Good
> to this forum, I am researching the topic of “Reexamining Beliefs”. I have
> recently read several books that pertain to forming beliefs and defending
> long-held beliefs. What I am still curious to understand is the triggers
> and introspective processes that result in people changing deeply held
> beliefs. For example, why do some people reflect on their religious beliefs
> and become non-theists? Why do people switch political parties, what
> triggers the shift from “love you forever” to “divorce you now”, why did
> some people shift from never Trump to Trump forever while Michael Cohen
> turned against him? Why do some people leave cults and others double down?
> What attracts people toward conspiracy theories and then what changes that
> causes people to abandon those theories?
>
>
>
> I would like to be able to describe a process each of us would be
> motivated to use to reexamine our beliefs and progress toward true beliefs.
>
>
>
> I will appreciate it if you can recommend reliable references on this
> topic.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Lee Beaumont
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
> or click the following link:
>
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>


-- 
---
james lyons-weiler, phd
Author, CEO, President, Scientist
Editor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lhaBGK2LX7aK2UmOFg-A_U3Oe-9d-sgiYPcjVv8P1nI&s=nHhodjDhtmtNGRGTfUja_JESJn1cJTR7toW8xLp3NKc&e= >
Guest Contributor, Children's Health Defense
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__childrenshealthdefense.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lhaBGK2LX7aK2UmOFg-A_U3Oe-9d-sgiYPcjVv8P1nI&s=PRu-a5wDr2iXic9zuqOzzlz6wBxnMcLkumaz4Z7L5VA&e= >

The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_1KNSxPp&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lhaBGK2LX7aK2UmOFg-A_U3Oe-9d-sgiYPcjVv8P1nI&s=fkWiuSIci7kBRcvjpA88YIhqcsd_BssV-AvpxG6Dy9k&e= >
(Skyhorse Publishing)
Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_gp_product_9814730149_ref-3Das-5Fli-5Fqf-5Fsp-5Fasin-5Fil-5Ftl-3Fie-3DUTF8-26camp-3D1789-26creative-3D9325-26creativeASIN-3D9814730149-26linkCode-3Das2-26tag-3Dlivgrelivwel-2D20&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lhaBGK2LX7aK2UmOFg-A_U3Oe-9d-sgiYPcjVv8P1nI&s=FlDBIYP4ysnE6C5B6fFXR32RoMdH6KrmeaDLWYj4Uok&e= >
(World
Scientific, 2016)
Ebola: An Evolving Story <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_1TGYY9r&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lhaBGK2LX7aK2UmOFg-A_U3Oe-9d-sgiYPcjVv8P1nI&s=77J4lhTu7CsgDk_qKxCklrFy3o0cut8DKig1YKw98rc&e= > (World Scientific, 2015)
cell 412-728-8743
email [log in to unmask]
www.*linkedin*.com/in/*jameslyonsweiler*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jameslyonsweiler&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lhaBGK2LX7aK2UmOFg-A_U3Oe-9d-sgiYPcjVv8P1nI&s=lGV2aRt7fPwRrNCG-kc63o9zY14tk_pz9m6Crl8ymbg&e= >

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1