Wonderful post by Jack.
I particularly liked this element;
We are shaved apes with self-referential G x E cognitive plasticities with emergences such as self awareness, culture, traditions, external memory devices (books etc) which also provide further E influences, and we are currently using the cognitive plasticities to try to understand them.
I would hasten to edit only a little bit this quote, such that what Jack is calling "emergences" to be "emergencies," for it appears that such development is always associated with some crisis of being as manifest in our human condition.
We are in one now.
Bradley
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author.
############################On Friday, September 25, 2020, 08:40:57 AM MST, James Lyons-Weiler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:############################Greg,I agree w/you.My interjection of course is not meant to replace or explain everything, evolutionary causes are not sufficient at all, but they are a necessary (but insufficient) starting place.
I know you agree that ToK would be incomplete without evolutionary starting points.Our ancestral legacies, such as hormones, absolutely influence us and what can be studied at the higher levels.Most evolutionary biologists would not, I think, presume to think seriously that we are merely shaved apes.We're so much more than that.We are shaved apes with self-referential G x E cognitive plasticities with emergences such as self awareness, culture, traditions, external memory devices (books etc) which also provide further E influences, and we are currently using the cognitive plasticities to try to understand them.Our collective minds then become a landscape upon which a collective intelligence about the world (including ourselves); it is an evolvingcollective intelligence, fluid, subject to mutation and selection. BIT and JUST are very useful and more general places within which this truth resides and bridge to societal tendencies and emergences.Another way to say this is that we really need to consider Cognitive Plastic Phenotype (CPP) = G x E^2At the same time, to me, ToK by definition is a beautiful and comprehensive example of those activities (unless you've had external influences you're not telling us about) :) Philosophers of logic can have fun trying to reconcile how specific examples such as ToK can or cannot be explained by themselves; your invocation of non-theistic metaphysics gives hypothetical framework which also represents an example of the competing ideas residing in the collective intelligence, but to me it's not an escape. I don't see ToK as tautological though- because as any model approaches sufficiency and completeness, it often becomes indistinguishable from reality.Convergence of quantum mechanics reconciled with general relativity will also seem obvious (unless GR needs to be replaced with an update).Thus, well done!I imagine that a self-help book "Embrace The Shaved Ape Within You" would be fun.Jack############################Thanks for this reply. This opens up a whole host of issues that I have long wrestled with, so I will not dive into the details.
The short reply I will offer is that (a) evolutionary does provide an absolutely necessary lens to understand human behavior and (b) it is not straightforward to go from an evolutionary biological analysis to understanding human mental behavior.
The reason why can be framed by the ToK System. You can’t just go from the second joint point (even a sophisticated evo devo synthesis) to human behavior without going through BIT first, then JUST. Even then you aren’t done, because you have grapple with fact-value issues. Steve Quackenbush will be talking about how the problem of value haunts psychology in a future TOK Community meeting.
So, short answer is, yes, I agree it is crucial to have the lens, and it is also the case that it needs to be qualified by considerations that I generally find evolutionary biologists to be blind to. For example, Bret Weinstein, god love him, way over shoots in his analysis of the extend to which you can apply straight forward evolutionary biological thinking to things like religion. Once you get the JUST frame right, then you can see why analyses like his are, well, profoundly incomplete.
For a few essays on evolutionary psychology, see here:
First, on why, from a UTOK perspective, evo psych comes up short:
a critique of my critique:
and my critique of that:
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>On Behalf Of James Lyons-Weiler
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reevaluating Beliefs
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. 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 earthis 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:
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, phdAuthor, CEO, President, Scientist
Editor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law
Guest Contributor, Children's Health Defense
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)
Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research (World Scientific, 2016)
Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)
cell 412-728-8743
email [log in to unmask]
www.linkedin.com/in/jameslyonsweiler############################
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, phdAuthor, CEO, President, ScientistEditor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the LawGuest Contributor, Children's Health DefenseThe Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)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