From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:39:36 GMT

In article <327F4972.79C@ix.netcom.com>,
Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
>As you may recall, the explanation for emotional need and disorder I have 
>offered is that it is a by-product of the evolution of rationality, which 
>itself is adaptive, at least in man's particular ecological niche. This is 
>highly compatible with constrained adaptionism.  On the other hand, Rey and 
>Matthews (see URL below) have argued that my theory is unnecessary on the 
>grounds that anomalous emotional behavior has already been "explained" by 
>the theory of kin selection, i.e., that Evel Knievel's behavior has been 
>directly selected for at the group level due to its beneficial effects to 
>other close copies of his DNA.  This is an example of flaming panadaptionism 
>if there ever was one.  So is the "theory" cited by Oliver Sparrow earlier 
>in this thread.

Even if they did make inappropriate kin selection arguments, which isn't clear
to me, and even if they argued that therefore your theory is "unnecessary",
your theory could *still* be unnecessary.  Without panadaptationalism, it is
your burden to show what is lacking explanation and why your explanation is
not merely plausible but in fact indicated by or at least supported by the
evidence.

>> Georges Rey asked
>> in his review of your paper "What contradiction?"  The implication is not, as
>> you would have it, that he never considered the question, but rather that it
>> remains your responsibility to show that there is one.
>> 
>
>I would say that if you don't have at least a little curiousity about why 
>there is a species of naturally selected organism exerting huge quantities 
>of effort and energy on the survivalistically bizarre objective of 
>maximizing self-worth that perhaps you should consider another line of work.

Without panadaptationalism, no one needs to explain why *anything* is
"bizarre" from a survival point of view.  The burden is upon *you* to show
that this behavior is *inconsistent* with natural selection.  The failure to
provide the sort of explanation you happen to think is necessary doesn't
indicate a lack of curiousity.  Your site is full of "(by implication)"s which
appear to me to be mere failure of imagination.  The complaint elsewhere about
"said that", which I find dubious in that context, is certainly apt to the
expression "X said (by implication) that Y".

>P.S.
>The SPP's conclusion (Rey and tacitly four members of the executive committee)

"tacitly"?

>is that my theoretical views are so infantile that the only proper solution 
>would be a beginner's course or two in appropriate subjects, a conclusion 
>you apparently agree with.

Well, education can't hurt, nor some concern for supporting evidence.  Oh, and
maybe a total readjustment of your paranoid attitude, which indeed is
infantile, and led to Dan Dennett's disgust, something not easy to extract
from him.

>Any other deficiencies you can point to which 
>might justify such an extreme conclusion would be most appreciated.

We can worry about the rest once you get past the basics.

--