3 ms·

The reductionism is the attempt to generalize incomplete biological understandings to the high level systems of which biology is the basis. This ignores the com

The reductionism is the attempt to generalize incomplete biological understandings to the high level systems of which biology is the basis. This ignores the complex interactions and properties that emerge at various points between the two domains. It's as misguided as saying that computers aren't digital because the underlying electromagnetism is analog. The article would be fine if it recognized that it was speaking in trends and generalities. But the information is presented as universal and individually applicable. For example: > But a lot of women, in particular, find it hard to accept that they are still looking for a protector and a provider. No doubt women find it hard to accept someone lecturing them on their preferences without allowing them any individuality. The idea that searching for a protector is adaptive seems reasonable enough. The fallacy is thinking it must therefore apply unconditionally to every individual person and culture. Individual behavior does not always adhere to what is adaptive and there is no reason to think there aren't other adaptations that may interact with, override or invert this "provider seeking" behavior on an individual basis. The diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic disposition is completely at odds with the simplistic view presented in the article. The system is too complex to understand in a few generalities. > Part of understanding higher level cultural phenomena is understanding our biological interactions I think It's more often part of an anti-understanding of higher level cultural phenomenon. My observation is that people who strongly believe in reducing love to chemicals or atoms are intellectualizing an area of their life where they do not feel capable, confident or in control. These beliefs then inhibit personal growth and an understanding of others. In the last couple of decades I have seen dozens of men and a handful of women grow out of reductionist beliefs.

selestify 5y ago
> The article would be fine if it recognized that it was speaking in trends and generalities. But the information is presented as universal and individually applicable. I agree. I assume that's just the journalist doing a bad job of getting the nuance across. > No doubt women find it hard to accept someone lecturing them on their preferences without allowing them any individuality. At the same time, we humans are notorious for rationalizing nice sounding, preferable reasons for why we engage in certain actions. I don't have the context on these personal discussions, of course, but perhaps those women were indeed acting in ways that were more congruent than not with the evo-psych explanation espoused here. > The diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic disposition is completely at odds with the simplistic view presented in the article. The system is too complex to understand in a few generalities. I agree with the complexity. Again, I assume that much of it is just the usual pop-science article being a pop-science article. Perhaps I assume wrongly. I do think however that overall, this is a research direction worth pursuing. There's a diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic dispositions, but what are some of the common driving forces in the background across time and culture? Why are some romantic experiences (e.g. an unreasonable crush on a specific person that fades over time) so common in the general population, and why do these experiences happen and play out in these common ways? > I think It's more often part of an anti-understanding of higher level cultural phenomenon. Quite possible, but IMO we shouldn't let popular misunderstandings of science detract from the actual scientific inquiry taking place. A lot of woo spiritualists have repurposed popular misconceptions of quantum mechanics for their own ends, but that doesn't detract from the legitimacy of actual quantum physicists.
- CipherThrowaway 5y ago
  > Quite possible, but IMO we shouldn't let popular misunderstandings of science detract from the actual scientific inquiry taking place. The idea that articles like this are science is a popular misunderstanding of science. The article is not a scientific work. It's a pop science piece where an individual scientist promotes her personal philosophies on love to a public audience. Her beliefs may integrate individual scientific facts but that does not make them scientific in themselves. > Why are some romantic experiences (e.g. an unreasonable crush on a specific person that fades over time) so common in the general population, and why do these experiences happen and play out in these common ways? Let's say you're feeling anxious before an important exam. Someone notices your anxiety and asks you why you're feeling that way. So you provide a detailed explanation of the neurochemical signalling cascade involved in an acute anxiety response and say that is why you are feeling anxious. Does this answer the question? In a very literal way it does. But it's a useless and incomplete answer. "I'm feeling anxious because I have an important exam coming up" is in many senses more useful and accurate. Our biology is shaped and acted on by our environment which includes many psychosocial factors. Culture and individual experience are biopsychosocial. Biology is to human behavior what electromagnetism is to computing. You can't build an understanding by considering only the lowest level details.
  - selestify 5y ago
    > The article is not a scientific work. I never said it was. I said it was pop science — in other words, a highly mangled portrayal of scientific work, made fit for public consumption. > It's a pop science piece where an individual scientist promotes her personal philosophies on love to a public audience. Her beliefs may integrate individual scientific facts but that does not make them scientific in themselves. She’s promoting the theory that she believes best fits the data. Assuming she’s not one of those scientists who fakes her data, that is very much a part of regular scientific discourse. Her theory may very well be wrong, but that doesn’t mean she’s not being scientific. Again, I am assuming that the claims she’s making are backed by actual data that she’s reviewed. Have you reviewed her work and found that this is not in fact the case? If so, I’ll cede that to you. > You can't build an understanding by considering only the lowest level details. No, but abstractions are leaky. You can’t build a full understanding without ignoring the lower level details either, which is what she certainly seems to be doing. As an example, > "I'm feeling anxious because I have an important exam coming up" is in many senses more useful and accurate. If someone notices that you’re always anxious, this is likely just your brain rationalizing the exam being the main or most important cause of your anxiety. On its own, it’s a perfectly plausible explanation. But in reality, how good of a predictor is the presence of an exam for your mental state? How good of a predictor for mating preferences is this evo-psych theory? I’m sure the women the author mentioned here have a unique reason for every man they passed on, but were those men by and large bad protectors and low earners? If so, those unique reasons for rejection sound more like post-hoc rationalizations than “real” reasons, and the cause of such biases deserve to be looked into further to ascertain the magnitude of biological or cultural influences. Unfortunately, as we both note, it’s a pop sci article that doesn’t contain that much information about the methodology or the results. I’m just saying, just as I can’t draw strong conclusions that it’s true based on this article itself, I don’t believe you can draw strong conclusions that it’s bunk and “not science,” either.

selestify 5y ago

> The article would be fine if it recognized that it was speaking in trends and generalities. But the information is presented as universal and individually applicable. I agree. I assume that's just the journalist doing a bad job of getting the nuance across. > No doubt women find it hard to accept someone lecturing them on their preferences without allowing them any individuality. At the same time, we humans are notorious for rationalizing nice sounding, preferable reasons for why we engage in certain actions. I don't have the context on these personal discussions, of course, but perhaps those women were indeed acting in ways that were more congruent than not with the evo-psych explanation espoused here. > The diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic disposition is completely at odds with the simplistic view presented in the article. The system is too complex to understand in a few generalities. I agree with the complexity. Again, I assume that much of it is just the usual pop-science article being a pop-science article. Perhaps I assume wrongly. I do think however that overall, this is a research direction worth pursuing. There's a diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic dispositions, but what are some of the common driving forces in the background across time and culture? Why are some romantic experiences (e.g. an unreasonable crush on a specific person that fades over time) so common in the general population, and why do these experiences happen and play out in these common ways? > I think It's more often part of an anti-understanding of higher level cultural phenomenon. Quite possible, but IMO we shouldn't let popular misunderstandings of science detract from the actual scientific inquiry taking place. A lot of woo spiritualists have repurposed popular misconceptions of quantum mechanics for their own ends, but that doesn't detract from the legitimacy of actual quantum physicists.

CipherThrowaway 5y ago
> Quite possible, but IMO we shouldn't let popular misunderstandings of science detract from the actual scientific inquiry taking place. The idea that articles like this are science is a popular misunderstanding of science. The article is not a scientific work. It's a pop science piece where an individual scientist promotes her personal philosophies on love to a public audience. Her beliefs may integrate individual scientific facts but that does not make them scientific in themselves. > Why are some romantic experiences (e.g. an unreasonable crush on a specific person that fades over time) so common in the general population, and why do these experiences happen and play out in these common ways? Let's say you're feeling anxious before an important exam. Someone notices your anxiety and asks you why you're feeling that way. So you provide a detailed explanation of the neurochemical signalling cascade involved in an acute anxiety response and say that is why you are feeling anxious. Does this answer the question? In a very literal way it does. But it's a useless and incomplete answer. "I'm feeling anxious because I have an important exam coming up" is in many senses more useful and accurate. Our biology is shaped and acted on by our environment which includes many psychosocial factors. Culture and individual experience are biopsychosocial. Biology is to human behavior what electromagnetism is to computing. You can't build an understanding by considering only the lowest level details.
- selestify 5y ago
  > The article is not a scientific work. I never said it was. I said it was pop science — in other words, a highly mangled portrayal of scientific work, made fit for public consumption. > It's a pop science piece where an individual scientist promotes her personal philosophies on love to a public audience. Her beliefs may integrate individual scientific facts but that does not make them scientific in themselves. She’s promoting the theory that she believes best fits the data. Assuming she’s not one of those scientists who fakes her data, that is very much a part of regular scientific discourse. Her theory may very well be wrong, but that doesn’t mean she’s not being scientific. Again, I am assuming that the claims she’s making are backed by actual data that she’s reviewed. Have you reviewed her work and found that this is not in fact the case? If so, I’ll cede that to you. > You can't build an understanding by considering only the lowest level details. No, but abstractions are leaky. You can’t build a full understanding without ignoring the lower level details either, which is what she certainly seems to be doing. As an example, > "I'm feeling anxious because I have an important exam coming up" is in many senses more useful and accurate. If someone notices that you’re always anxious, this is likely just your brain rationalizing the exam being the main or most important cause of your anxiety. On its own, it’s a perfectly plausible explanation. But in reality, how good of a predictor is the presence of an exam for your mental state? How good of a predictor for mating preferences is this evo-psych theory? I’m sure the women the author mentioned here have a unique reason for every man they passed on, but were those men by and large bad protectors and low earners? If so, those unique reasons for rejection sound more like post-hoc rationalizations than “real” reasons, and the cause of such biases deserve to be looked into further to ascertain the magnitude of biological or cultural influences. Unfortunately, as we both note, it’s a pop sci article that doesn’t contain that much information about the methodology or the results. I’m just saying, just as I can’t draw strong conclusions that it’s true based on this article itself, I don’t believe you can draw strong conclusions that it’s bunk and “not science,” either.