Bloggingheads.tv - Latest Comments in The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Bron Stoll-Engelsen — Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:37:55 -0000

I really like this discussion. Currently a wright show patron and he’s my main thinking dude, yet I think bob is really challenged here. I think Chris is patient and responds sensibly and makes a stronger argument that resonates with my personal intuition. I wish these guys had a continued conversation. Third time in 8yrs listening to this one. :)

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

AVK — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:01:50 -0000

Wright comes across as shrieking, hardheaded and arrogant, clinging to stale talking points . Ryan (whom I was predisposed not to like based on various internet comments and reviews) comes across as thoughtful, eloquent and well informed.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

b p — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 08:35:24 -0000

Cuckold*

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

otakucode — Sat, 04 May 2013 11:37:58 -0000

I would think in a situation where a woman is completely materially independent, jealousy would not be terribly different because that woman still grew up in a post-agricultural culture and has been taught that sex is a private thing which must be controlled. Cultural influences can't be overcome without a great deal of effort.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Everett Newell — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:58:59 -0000

Yeah, fair enough - and I'm splitting hairs because I agree with you.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

$20883679 — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 03:34:45 -0000

Didn't I say:

If sexual desire, Plato's divine eros, serves other ends than the reproduction of the "selfish gene," it is at least conceivable that evolution is teleological....

However, the fact that evolution eventually produced, by random variations and natural selection, the big-brained species homo sapiens and homo sapiens turned out to be a social animal capable of thought (language etc) and eventually of creating complex civilisations, is not proof that evolution is teleological. From a scientific point of view, the whole process could be nothing but the play of "chance and necessity" (Le hasard et la nécessité is the title of a well-known book by a French biologist, Jacques Monod). Looking back on the whole process, we, standing at the "end" (telos) of it, conclude that it had to lead to us. But that could just be an illusion, what Bergson called the "retrospective illusion of fatality."

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

whburgess — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:22:59 -0000

I can't represent Wright or Pinker. But I can see how a line of thought could run like this:

1. If evolution can be seen as the opposite of entropy, that is the rise of recurring patterns or processes as opposed to the deterioration of them.

2. And the more complex a pattern or process is, the more likely it is to recur, with human beings being the most complex process we know of.

3. And morality is a crucial factor in the ability of humans to survive.

Then I can see how this would indicate that increasing morality is innate in our universe. In fact, I think I'd agree with all of these three points, but I think there are certain assumptions that determine whether or not this indicates a teleology.

With 1., I think this supports a teleology only if one assumes that entropy is somehow the original state of the universe, rather then order being the original state. If one assumed that neither is the original, but that both exist together, then one is not able assume a teleology unless one was a Zoroastrian who believed in a chaos god and an order god.

I think step number 2. above is obviously true based on all evidence in the history of Earth. The history of Earth is not insignificant as, while human history is insignificant in terms of duration, evolution of life itself, on earth, has been going on for a very significant portion of the history of the universe itself. However, we don't know how typical Earth itself is. We are just now learning that earth like planets in the galaxy are quite normal, but we don't know if development of life is the norm. I think we'll be able to find that out in the near future, and if we do, this will greatly support the idea that evolution is not on equal, but on greater, footing with entropy in the universe. And this supports a teleology.

With regard to number 3., what species, other then humans, has had the capacity to destroy itself? A bug may still get us, but I think it much less likely that this will happen to us, then it is that it happened many times to less complex species, such as dinosaurs. We are our greatest danger, and what will determine what happens to us more then our morality? Morality is definitely integral to continued survival when a species reaches our level of complexity. I don't see how anyone can deny that. So there would be no better evidence for or against evolution as a superior force to entropy in the universe, then how we handle our ability to self-destruct. This, after all, may be the truth of the matter, which would indicate that entropy is on equal footing and life has no purpose.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

whburgess — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:41:57 -0000

So there will never be any evidence for teleology as long as the natural sciences hold sway.

What would evidence for teleology look like? Why is this not considered 'evidence' by natural science?

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Ocean — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:08:46 -0000

Yes, I'm aware of that and I disagree with both (or at least I can say that about Bob's position which I'm more familiar with).

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Everett Newell — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:36:29 -0000

I'm inclined to agree, however Steven Pinker and Bob Wright have both suggested an innate direction to evolution (absent of an intended plan or design), which displays increasing morality. Even going as far as to suggest that increasing morality is innate to our universe and not limited to human interaction.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Ocean — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:04:14 -0000

The only direction or trend, or any resemblance of morality can be found in the outcomes of our own tinkering with evolution, our interpretations of what's moral, and the brevity (and perhaps transience) of our own existence.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Everett Newell — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:46:40 -0000

While I agree that natural science is not teleological, and that studies of the natural world likely won't reveal any sort of purpose or design intention - to say that there will never be any evidence of for teleology (that natural science is blind to or in conflict with teleology) is, once again, way too absolute. While I don't think there is a teleological explanation for the natural world, it's better to stay agnostic rather than close the door entirely.

Definitely selection-based evolution is not teleological, but in your opinion does that prevent it from having an obvious direction or trend? Seems to me that we can draw a line of increasing complexity and integration (and maybe even morality) as the biosphere evolves. that isn't specifically teleological, but the direction and outcome seem ordered and predictable.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Everett Newell — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:21:10 -0000

With what accuracy can we really claim that per-agricultural women weren't dependent on men for their survival? Granted we see evidence of this dependence post agriculture - but simply saying that because women provided more caloric resources to the group than men (I think this is accepted now) doesn't mean they controlled those resources.

I've recently read a book called Catching Fire (Not the hunger games book) by author Richard Wrangham. It is suggested that women depended on men to keep the food resources they accumulated safe from theft, and rival men; that this protection-based relationship had a lot to do with the monogamous pairing off that eventually became a hallmark of our society. It isn't surprising that affluent, educated and independent women are willing entertain multiple sex partners, but I think that's a recently learned behavior and not a default position.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Steph2012 — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:48:52 -0000

Okay, I digress, but this reminds me of: "What kind of people make a career of checking to see whether the covering of a woman's nipples is fully opaque, as the statute requires?" (Judge Posner, concurrence, Miller v. City of South Bend, 941 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. en banc 1990), subsequently reversed by the SC.)

(And the dissent accused the majority and especially Posner of the following:

"Under the flag of social and sexual individual freedom,
advocates of such causes as the sexual revolution have utilized the judicial system to implement their Freudian vision of a society delivered from the legacy of repressed sexuality.")

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Wiki321 — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 17:59:57 -0000

Robert,

Here is the latest from Gareth Porter....

IAEA Report Shows Iran Reduced Its Breakout Capacity

http://www.lobelog.com/iaea...

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Dwayne J. Stephenson — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 16:23:41 -0000

Do you get the feeling you're relying just a little too damned much on the deus ex machina of unconscious motivation in human relations, Bob?

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

$20883679 — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:23:31 -0000

Science, since its inception in the 17th century, is anti-teleological. So there will never be any evidence for teleology as long as the natural sciences hold sway. Natural selection as conceived by Darwin was explicitly anti-teleological: random variations + natural selection (survival of the fittest) = evolution.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

MegGuest — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 00:00:01 -0000

Just for the fun of it: http://www.warandgender.com.... I think guys over-play the "protect the little woman rule". Which is not to say I've never appealed to stronger muscle for some needs, I have, and have much appreciated the help! But I like to have the right to ask, or at least not have my needs assumed by "gender criteria". It's amazing what can be accomplished by standing ones own ground against a threat, or by figuring out ways to use tools and lever strength. Some of the toughest women I've known were barely over 5ft tall. Many had ranching experience. They could all also be quite feminine when it suited them to do so.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

MegGuest — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 23:53:48 -0000

I've not heard the entire interview - I selected the final segment as likely of interest and possibly one I could tolerate. I don't mean to single out either Robert or Christopher as taking unusual or outrageous stands. It's just that from my late teens, when I figured out most of the world around me wanted to make a big deal of male-female differences, and I didn't - I began to tune out the arguments.

A decade later I spent a lot of time interjecting a key question into male/female difference arguments (the arguments were impossible to avoid altogether.) My question: "After perhaps some 7000 years of making a big deal about differences, why not spend at least a couple of years trying to discover deeply underlying matching, shared, capacities, longings, etc?"

It's my observation that many of both genders seem to quite badly want to believe the differences are so fundamental that genuine companionship of heart, body, mind type is unlikely or impossible. Not so in my experience, which I have to admit I partly steered by avoiding guys who needed to emphasize difference.

I think a lot of what we experience as gender biased interest/behavior is obviously due to socialization. I think even the concept of "gender wars" is strongly due to socialization processes.

I *have* met both guys and gals who seem physically, genetically, strongly oriented toward archetypal masculine or feminine behaviors of "experiencing and presenting themselves." (They don't necessarily engage in 'gender war' concerns.) But from very early, I seemed to be "some of each" (assertive, physical, quite happy crawling about in greasy machinery and also empathic, inclined to "talk about relationships", occasionally "glamorous") I decided there must be a continuum and I was somewhere near the center. I could identify guys who were near the center of my imagined continuum also.

My private conundrum was cleared up when I read the book "Androgyny" by June Singer. I've not read it in years, but recall it's value to me. Until then I'd not come across Jungian insights of "feminine and masculine principle within one self". The book validated, explained, much that I found within myself that seemed a less than perfect fit with gender stereotypes. Reading the book aslo confirmed for me that the stereotypes were based on incomplete understanding, (a different model was available and was not in use.) Nurturing behavior of males was in every guy's life of people I knew, but was "overlooked" to keep the stereotypes consistent. Women of strong feminine qualities were frequently busy with projects that took the mind of an engineer - a capacity also overlooked when stereotypes were important.

I'm so glad I read Singer's book! I don't know if/when "gender wars" will pass from cultural preoccupation, but I personally reject any theory that these are built into human nature. The potential may be built in, but the potential to choose other models of how relationships might work is also available and built-in, IMO.

I also reject basing what's possible of my human experience to observations of non-human species. I'm human - in a different category, for better or worse. Other creatures are "perfectly what they are" and are not all the same, so why should I look to their habits as evidence of my own "genetic programming"? If they and humans match up - interesting, if we don't it would be silly to suggest we have to change to match! (I'm not saying we're told we're not normal unless we match behaviors of non-human similar creatures, but I have long wondered how far benefit of comparative study goes.)

I *do* frequently "step into" what I mentally can experience of hunter-gatherer reality for all kinds of ideas, including practical solutions. It's my understanding women in many cultures hunted and trapped small game. They also would have lived much more physical lives - interesting given what we've learned about menses, etc. of female athletes.

Robert and Christopher focused significantly on the individual's potential to reproduce his/her personal genetic set (lots for guys, limited for gals). I think that topic could be a whole different and fairly long conversation. If I understood their different points of view, Robert wondered about individual in-built urge to maximize offspring count - not a "reasonable" biological urge for women. Christopher emphasized the in-built urge of "the group" as a unit to keep its population going with less concern of paternity by individual males. Maybe Christopher's model hunter-gatherers were from a time "When God was a Woman"! (book - by Merlin Stone)
:).

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

TGGP — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:58:26 -0000

A recent book, Sex at Dusk, argues against Ryan's book and sounds more plausible to me than the claim that our ancestors didn't care about paternity.
http://www.overcomingbias.c...

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

schwed — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:40:41 -0000

Ryan claims current gender roles are the result of agriculture. Richard Wrangham, in Catching Fire, claims it is the result of cooking: A woman has to have someone guard her while she cooks food. What do most experts believe?

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Peter Twieg — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:31:18 -0000

"You can look at the same data and derive half a dozen equally plausible conclusions that all contradict one another."

Right, that's commonly referred to as "having different priors". I understand that the "medieval science" thing is supposed to be a dig at evolutionary psychology in particular and perhaps any sort of social or evolutionary science in general, but the kinds of problems you're mocking can't be solved by simply adopting a better philosophy of science.

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Ocean — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:22:55 -0000

You're good. You've got a bright successful career waiting for you. Have you contacted publishers already?

;)

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

ohreeally — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 14:52:17 -0000

That's the other cool thing about medieval science. You can look at the same data and derive half a dozen equally plausible conclusions that all contradict one another.

It's fun to watch two medieval scientists go at each other.

"Blood is red because the planet Mars is red and Mars is the god of blood spilling."

"Oh you qualling, dankish, beslubbering unchin-snouted, guts-griping barnacle! Don't you know that blood is blue! Look at your blueish swollen veins! When I slice them open, you skanky bumbailey, you'll see how your blue blood turns red! And the theory is clear: Air consists of invisible red paint molecules that turn all of your blood's blue cells into red cells upon contact.

"Oh yeah, so what about the white cells? Your theory can't account for them, huh?"

"Oh you flap-mouthed weasel. It's the vital forces that take the white cells away! Now scram. I've got a best-seller to write."

Re: The Wright Show - Aug 31, 2012 - Robert Wright & Christopher Ryan

Ocean — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 14:44:13 -0000

Once again we see that the narratives created within the framework of evolutionary psychology can be varied. The links between current behaviors and culture and possible antecedents are always tenuous and certainly arguable.

From a more positive perspective, it is the nature of scientific inquiry to question established propositions and add other perspectives, especially in a discipline where there's so little that can be confirmed by evidence and when so much is about finding a narrative that matches some of the possible pieces.

Of course, the possibility that we have many pieces belonging to several different puzzles is strong. It is very possible that we do have several valid narratives and that a great unified theory, so to speak, is not going to be found.

It is also possible that our sexuality is just flexible and not fixated in certain tendencies, and depending on the cultural context it may adopt different forms. It would tell us more about our plasticity and adaptability although it would ruin the justification for certain kinds of promiscuous behavior which aren't accepted in some cultures.

The graphic detail of the conversation was fun, especially for people who aren't versed in this field of study. And indeed the subtitles under the main video reveal a mischievous sense of humor.

Thank you both for the discussion.