3 ms·

That is what I would dispute. A victim who signals victimhood isnt necessary, indeed perhaps often, looking for help. Which is why so many victims arent helped

That is what I would dispute. A victim who signals victimhood isnt necessary, indeed perhaps often, looking for help. Which is why so many victims arent helped, of course. If you're punched by a bully, you may just want to run away in shame -- yet, and onlooker may strongly desire to help you. By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture. This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different. Evolution is a blind machine with no intention; if you perform this elimination you will mistakenly assume the same of people.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think we are mixing up two ideas. A victim can communicate/signal a need for help by asking, posturing, expressing a need. This can be intentional or unintentional. An observer can also determine a need for help by analysis of observational information outside of an intentional or unintentional signal. Punching a bully might convey information that someone needs help, despite not being an intentional or unintentional signal. Similarly, I might conclude that someone needs help by looking at their bank account without them even knowing. >By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture. I don't think I follow your reasoning. How does reducing them to selfish actors eliminate psychology? >This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different. Not all actions are intended to be social signals. Some clearly are. I think the evo-psych/game theory models explain the purpose of social signals well. The point still stands that not every action an actor makes is a social signal. The role of psychology is to explain the state of individual, what leads them to make an action, or send a signal. The question of what message is sent by someone crying is different from why they are crying in the first place. evo-psych might say they are probably crying because crying signals a need for attention and support. Regular psych might say they are crying because their spouse died.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think we are mixing up two ideas. A victim can communicate/signal a need for help by asking, posturing, expressing a need. This can be intentional or unintentional. An observer can also determine a need for help by analysis of observational information outside of an intentional or unintentional signal. Punching a bully might convey information that someone needs help, despite not being an intentional or unintentional signal. Similarly, I might conclude that someone needs help by looking at their bank account without them even knowing. >By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture. I don't think I follow your reasoning. How does reducing them to selfish actors eliminate psychology? >This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different. Not all actions are intended to be social signals. Some clearly are. I think the evo-psych/game theory models explain the purpose of social signals well. The point still stands that not every action an actor makes is a social signal. The role of psychology is to explain the state of individual, what leads them to make an action, or send a signal. The question of what message is sent by someone crying is different from why they are crying in the first place. evo-psych might say they are probably crying because crying signals a need for attention and support. Regular psych might say they are crying because their spouse died.