ant wrote:It seems natural enough if we reduce eevolutionary psychology to our selfish genes.

Because there is more to the picture than our genes, as I've already said.

Compatablism?

Cultural evolution?

Interbane wrote:Cultural evolution?

Hard to evidence and falsify without speaking of truisms.
Testability?

ant wrote:Testability?

Testability of what? That humans have culture? That said culture evolves? That this cultural evolution is partially responsible for the way you wear your baseball hat? I think the entire chain of reasoning is a truism, without need for testing or explanation. What part are you questioning?

The baseball cap example is about behavior and how evolution would attempt to explain a particular behavior scientifically.

You are being very general by saying cultural evolution explains it. Are you saying that saying cultural evolution explains this particular behavior is good enough? No hypotheses are needed to explain behavior within an evolutionary framework - its just cultural evolution and a truism is good enough?
I thought the answers I provided were at least plausible.

Yes, i know you have a prior theoretical commitment and that you must add the word evolution to every explanation. In this case its cultural evolution and thats it.
That's fine. I get it. But does that mean that there is no obligation to test any explanations that are related to evolution?


How would you test or falsify a hypothesis of evolutionary psychology, cause I honestly do not know.

(Its silly to think I was asking how youd test culture. You are playing word games now. Saying cultural evolution explains a specific behavior is like saying "evolution dun it - thats all I know!")

Ultimately there is a natural explanation as to why someone wears a hat backwards, although such explanations are likely to be speculative at this time. Ant has a tendency to mock any science in the formative stages (and just to be clear, I'm referring to evolutionary psychology). But consider this article that suggests that smoking cigarettes is a kind of social embellishment that mimics the peacock's tail in terms of advertising fitness. Please note that the title of the article is in the form of a question, which indicates to the alert reader that no firm conclusions are being drawn.

An excerpt:

There is strong evidence that both men and women prefer brave and risk-taking individuals as partners and friends, with women showing a gradual increase in desirability with increasing risk (Bassett & Moss, 2004; Kelly & Dunbar, 2001). Only women expressed a preference for risk-takers in their long-term romantic partners. These results are partially congruent with predictions based on the perspective of evolutionary psychology, particularly the parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972) which states that the sex which bears the greatest cost of reproduction (women in the case of homo sapiens) will be the most selective when choosing a mate. There are at least two candidate explanations as to why ancestral women would have preferred mates who engaged in dangerous and potentially self-destructive behaviours: one states that such behaviours help acquire higher status and resources or demonstrate the abilities necessary for resource acquisition. The other explanation is that risk-taking might work as an honest cue or signal for “good genes”, just as it was proposed by Zahavi (1975), formalized by Grafen (1990) and Godfray (1991), and elaborated and popularized by Diamond (1992).

I would think that wearing a hat backwards is a superficial way of advertising fitness in the same way that smoking cigarettes does, although it's a pale imitation to be sure since there's no risk (except perhaps for the hat-wearer to be beaten up in the parking lot after the game). That any woman would fall for a backwards-hat-wearing dude shows that there truly is a woman for every man.

http://www.academia.edu/6397654/Can_cig ... r_to_women

ant wrote:Yes, i know you have a prior theoretical commitment and that you must add the word evolution to every explanation. In this case its cultural evolution and thats it.

I don't have a theoretical commitment. I'm using the most accurate word in my arsenal. Does culture not evolve over time? Do you understand what this means? Is there a more accurate word to use? If so, let me have it. I'm not appealing to science when I say culture evolves. As you pointed out, it's a truism. There might be a scientific field that studies it... anthropology? Jared Diamond has written a few good books on the topic.

ant wrote:How would you test or falsify a hypothesis of evolutionary psychology, cause I honestly do not know.

I'm sure there are a ton of ways, but I don't know them. Do a quick google search.

ant wrote:(Its silly to think I was asking how youd test culture. You are playing word games now.

It's not silly because you aren't being clear. I say cultural evolution, and you reply with ..."testability"? Why is it silly to jump to a conclusion from your response? I'm not playing word games ant.

This conversation is like one with a mad hatter. I don't even know what your issue is about. Are you angry because I'm using the word evolution? Or do you honestly think it doesn't apply in this case? Or are you making a comment that I've used the word more than once? You may have an emotional distaste for the word, but when information undergoes incremental changes over long periods of time, the proper and most precise word is "evolve". You picked the topic.

ant wrote:Saying cultural evolution explains a specific behavior is like saying "evolution dun it - thats all I know!"

Cultural evolution is completely different from biological evolution(the theory of evolution). You asked how the theory of evolution could explain your baseball hat wearing tendencies. I said it couldn't, at least not on it's own. Your hat wearing is a cultural thing. It is a truism, yes. It offers nothing helpful, except to point out that you're wrong when you think biological evolution should fully explain your hat wearing. That's my entire point, nothing more.

Who's angry, you?

Okay.. naturalism should be reducing behavior to lowest terms (material physiology) but you just keep saying its culture its culture.

In the end its a justso copout but I understand your struggle with science and story telling.

Thanks.

geo wrote:Ultimately there is a natural explanation as to why someone wears a hat backwards, although such explanations are likely to be speculative at this time. Ant has a tendency to mock any science in the formative stages (and just to be clear, I'm referring to evolutionary psychology). But consider this article that suggests that smoking cigarettes is a kind of social embellishment that mimics the peacock's tail in terms of advertising fitness. Please note that the title of the article is in the form of a question, which indicates to the alert reader that no firm conclusions are being drawn.

An excerpt:

There is strong evidence that both men and women prefer brave and risk-taking individuals as partners and friends, with women showing a gradual increase in desirability with increasing risk (Bassett & Moss, 2004; Kelly & Dunbar, 2001). Only women expressed a preference for risk-takers in their long-term romantic partners. These results are partially congruent with predictions based on the perspective of evolutionary psychology, particularly the parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972) which states that the sex which bears the greatest cost of reproduction (women in the case of homo sapiens) will be the most selective when choosing a mate. There are at least two candidate explanations as to why ancestral women would have preferred mates who engaged in dangerous and potentially self-destructive behaviours: one states that such behaviours help acquire higher status and resources or demonstrate the abilities necessary for resource acquisition. The other explanation is that risk-taking might work as an honest cue or signal for “good genes”, just as it was proposed by Zahavi (1975), formalized by Grafen (1990) and Godfray (1991), and elaborated and popularized by Diamond (1992).

I would think that wearing a hat backwards is a superficial way of advertising fitness in the same way that smoking cigarettes does, although it's a pale imitation to be sure since there's no risk (except perhaps for the hat-wearer to be beaten up in the parking lot after the game). That any woman would fall for a backwards-hat-wearing dude shows that there truly is a woman for every man.

http://www.academia.edu/6397654/Can_cig ... r_to_women

Those last comments were excellent and is the justso scientific explanation i am looking for.

Great!