Re: Evolution and baseball caps
Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 3:40 pm
Because there is more to the picture than our genes, as I've already said.ant wrote:It seems natural enough if we reduce eevolutionary psychology to our selfish genes.
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
Because there is more to the picture than our genes, as I've already said.ant wrote:It seems natural enough if we reduce eevolutionary psychology to our selfish genes.
Interbane wrote:Cultural evolution?
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?ant wrote:Testability?
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.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 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: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'm sure there are a ton of ways, but I don't know them. Do a quick google search.ant wrote:How would you test or falsify a hypothesis of evolutionary psychology, cause I honestly do not know.
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.ant wrote:(Its silly to think I was asking how youd test culture. You are playing word games now.
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.ant wrote:Saying cultural evolution explains a specific behavior is like saying "evolution dun it - thats all I know!"
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:
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.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).
http://www.academia.edu/6397654/Can_cig ... r_to_women