Psicologia evolutiva ou bobagens materialistas???

Darwin certa vez pensou: dá para acreditar na mente que evoluiu de um primata? Darwin achava meio difícil acreditar nisso. Tendo Darwin como pano de fundo, então a psicologia evolutiva é uma dentre as muitas bobagens materialistas que passam como ciência com o aval da Nomenklatura científica

+++++

Steps toward convergence: Evolutionary psychology's saga continues

Jerome H. Barkow,1

+ Author Affiliations

Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H4P9

Let us not ask whether the brain is “really” a biological computer. The more productive question is whether it is useful to think of the brain as a computer, one designed by evolution to solve problems of adaptation via specialized “circuits” and “architecture.” Does this biocomputational approach, pioneered by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (1) and then developed and expanded by them and others [such as David Buss (2, 3), Geoffrey Miller (4, 5), and Steven Pinker (6)] lead to theory and research that further our understanding of human behavior? Critics notwithstanding (e.g., ref. 7), the evidence of the article in this issue of PNAS (8), indeed, of the myriad books and research papers produced by the Cosmides–Tooby school of thought, is “yes.” But, of course, there are caveats.

Sell, Tooby, and Cosmides (8) posit the existence of welfare tradeoff ratios (WTRs), the ratio between the welfare of another and that of the actor. These WTRs are presented as “not just post hoc theoretical constructs but … real neurocognitive elements within the human motivational architecture.” If Sally's WTR “circuitry” is giving a relatively high weight to Jane's interests rather than her own, the ratio will be in Jane's favor and she will do well in her negotiations with Sally over resources. We humans have therefore been selected to seek to increase the WTR others are according us, and we can do this because the WTR not only “integrates” relatively fixed factors such as kinship, reciprocation, and aggression, but also takes many other factors into account, including our readiness to get angry. In effect, we may unconsciously use anger to bully another into recalculating a WTR in our favor, causing that person to give more weight to our interests than they otherwise would. But who uses anger in this tactical way? “Anger is more likely to be triggered when an actor is positioned to make the price of resisting recalibration high” (8). People who are more “formidable” (physically stronger) than others (generally males) are more able to “inflict costs on the target” and are therefore more likely to use anger. So are those who are more able to confer benefits on others, e.g., the attractive, especially attractive women. Sell, Tooby, and Cosmides predict that those who are formidable or attractive should have a “greater sense of entitlement,” be more prone to anger, and be more likely to see conflicts resolved in their favor than the less formidable or attractive. Once a favorable settlement has been reached, anger should wane. Their data are largely consistent with these expectations. Attractive women and strong men are more likely than others to use anger to increase WTRs.

+++++

PDF gratuito do artigo aqui.