From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 21:02:46 -0500

Jim Balter wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Ah, yes.  The evidence.  I can understand how some of you chaps
working in cognitivist circles might have a little difficulty
with this. The evidence for the theory has two basic components:

a. the evidence supporting the theory of natural selection with
its implication that the dominant motivation in our species
should be the pursuit of our _physical_ well-being (DNA being
the physical stuff that it is) and

b. the introspective evidence (assuming that my own mind is not
atypical) that the dominant motivational factor in our species is
not the need for _physical_ well-being, as a standard physicalist
interpretation would lead us to believe,
but rather the need for _emotioanl_ well-being, i.e., the pursuit
of a sense of self-worth.  This evidence is further corroborated by
the schism which exists between natural science and the
humanities, a schism which goes right down the middle of
psychology itself, as a matter of fact.

Now then, in an agile mind, this sort of unexpected discovery is
supposed to create a bit of cognitive disonance (like Rutherford
having beta particles come back at 180 degrees) and a realization
that an explanation might be in order (e.g., that the mass is
concentrated in the nucleus).  I have offered one and
gone on to explain that if the theory is correct, then it would also
explain blah blah blah (Implications and Additional Implications
in the synopsis).  In case you have forgotten, this sort of thing
is referred to as an anomaly (in this case, a _psychical_ anomaly)
and, presumably, the stuff science is supposed to be made of,
at least if Kuhn got this part of it right.

> >> 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.
>

I stand by this statement.  To me, science is not a matter of
method and therefore algorhythmic and something any lunkhead can
do.  It requires insight, an eye for epistemic beauty, holistic
perceptiveness, the ability to discern when something is amiss even
though everyone else is trying to shut you up.  In other words,
sadly for some, it is a profession that requires a certain amount
of innate talent.  And, to my mind, if Evel Knievel and feelings
of worthlessness fail to arouse at least a modicum of curiousity
than you _are_ in the wrong 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.

I'm not sure I understand you, but it sounds a little like you
are saying that natural selection is not so much a theory as an
unfalsifiable dogma.  If Evel Knievel (and he's just the tip of
the iceburg) is not at least a little disturbing to you, I can't
help but wonder just what would qualify as an anomaly in your
opinion?

> 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".
>

I have posted the relevant passages earlier in this thread
(Nov 5, 8:34).  I will leave it to others (excepting Longley)
as to what extent I have been reckless with the implications
you are referring to, since I believe you yourself may be
more concerned with winning an argument (maximizing self-
worth) than with taking an open-minded look at an interesting
new idea (Yes, _new_!).
 
> >P.S.
> >The SPP's conclusion (Rey and tacitly four members of the executive committee)
>
> "tacitly"?
>

Yea!  It was really fun to watch these guys (The SPP) all lined up
like a bunch of parrots, each one backing the other to the hilt, no
matter how absurd the original position.  They had me and my friends
rolling in the aisles.
 
> >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.

Actually, in a domain of science which does not yet exist (e.g., Leahey,
Koch, etc.), or which is at least struggling to find itself, it
can be quite detrimental, not only in indoctrinating one into the same
old mistakes, but also in inducing one to become a part of the
problem (e.g., a willingness to defend the academic status quo from
non-academic intruders no matter what the cost).
 
> Oh, and
> maybe a total readjustment of your paranoid attitude, which indeed is
> infantile,

You might be right.  I'm probably as capable of being petty and
defensive as the next guy, yourself for instance.

> and led to Dan Dennett's disgust, something not easy to extract
> from him.
>

Not always.  His review of Popper and Eccles (Journ of Phil, 76, 91-97)
was one of the most mean spirited I have read.  There's also a little
assumption you seem to be taking for granted, i.e., that the Lycan
Roberts dialogue was indeed personal rather than in his capacity
as a representative of the SPP, an assumption which is actually
false, and demonstrably so.
 
> >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.
>

Well, in cognitive science I have been told by those supposedly
in the know (Rey #3B) that the basics are to be found in
Gleitman's _Psychology_.  As I said in my paper, "800 pages on
everything from acquistion curves to zygotes, but I'll be damned
if I could find a single reference to feelings of worthlessness
or related topics"

I don't know what basics you are talking about, but if this is an
example, they certainly aren't the basics of the human mind, at
least not the one I have.  Maybe yours is different, eh?

--

Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective of
So-Called Cognitive Science

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476