(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best books about evolutionary psychology

Np, also I had a bit of a typo in my comment, my pet theory was actually that our higher cognitive function allows us to deviate from primal instinct to some extent but ultimately not enough to where we are perfectly moral, non-animalistic creatures-- we are very much driven by basic need, since that helps us survive and gets propagated throughout generations, the other things our intellect affords us such as awareness of our insignificance in the grand scheme of things or philosophy, art, etc. are just fortunate by-products of our abstraction ability, which was selected due to it's ability to aid us in survival and reproduction, consequently it is subservient to those basic drives.

Some other books I haven't even touched yet (but plan to) but which also have a good reputation:

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Inner-Ape-Primatologist-Explains/dp/1594481962

https://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6KQC849RMQDHAHCNND0J

https://www.amazon.com/SEX-AT-DAWN-STRAY-MEANS/dp/B00KEVTNSK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498547954&sr=1-1&keywords=sex+at+dawn

https://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Women-Want-Adventures/dp/0061906093/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0061906093&pd_rd_r=2RBWQA67MBBA734QWF20&pd_rd_w=B1B9p&pd_rd_wg=HueSP&psc=1&refRID=2RBWQA67MBBA734QWF20

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996/ref=pd_sim_14_89?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0679763996&pd_rd_r=Q4WSH2CZDEQX8RASGQ0T&pd_rd_w=oCsRh&pd_rd_wg=mKnBF&psc=1&refRID=Q4WSH2CZDEQX8RASGQ0T

> At this point it just seems like the spirit is a word for another part of the brain.

Or vice versa. All of the physical reductionist explanations of consciousness include a step that is really "and then a miracle occurs." We can trace electrical impulses through the brain, we can see changes in chemistry, but we haven't the slightest idea of how these could cause qualia or experience.

> Now, it seems very handy evolutionary for the brain to be synchronised. If it weren't then there'd be no association between pain and your hand touching fire, for instance. You might not associate someones voice with the movement of their mouth. In fact it seems pretty critical that, at some point, the brain synchronises everything together before further processing is done on the totality of the experience, of reality. I can't imagine an animal that could function with an un-coordinated qualia.

See what you did there? You skip from synchronization of the totality of the impulses into "experience". There's absolutely no reason why this physical synchronization of physical states should give rise to consciousness or qualia.

> Now the illusion of free-will is likely a run on from that sense of consciousness. We know we made the decision before we experienced the effect, we were aware of the impulse to move our hand before the moving of our hand came into consciousness, but this could be side-effect of the fact that our sensory organs have a delayed sense of information, or perhaps it proved beneficial for impulses to appear to precede events.

Again, you're mixing things up: if the decision was made mechanically, deterministically, based on the processing of physical elements, then there is no free will, and no benefit to the illusion of free will, as the processing would (necessarily) result in the same "decision" deterministically.

>If this didn't happen then we'd just perceive our body moving on it's own accord,

No: we just wouldn't be aware of anything, the same way computers with webcams can be programmed to respond to visual stimuli without experiencing qualia.

If you're interested in this subject, I'd strongly recommend you take a look at this book, which shows the problems with physical reductionism.

Sarcasm and scientific articles are a terrible mix. It supercharges whatever biases the author already has, while making them take more hard-line stances on claims than they often should.

I get that this article is really entertainment, but if anyone wants a fair criticism (that is still effective at shutting down some of Peterson's arguments) take a look at Sense & Nonsense by Laland & Brown.

<300 page book that is pretty accessible and summarizes the current state of knowledge on what parts of human behaviour are evolved vs dependent on environment.

TBH I wish everyone who wants to discuss this topic would read it, as some science is bunk, but some is definitely not. And the topic is very controversial, so there are TONs of hit/smear pieces out there on both sides.

It's sort of like some people stole and made a fortune off of it, and their descendents talk about markets are fair and wealth is always fairly distributed and let's just let capitalism do it's job...but we didnt' start with a level playing field, the hsitory of hominids has been self-serving backstabbing for, well...millions of years.

Check out the book Big Brain: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence. It's pretty good.

I am an evolutionary anthropologist and it's true, human diversity is definitely biological BUT the delineations of one race from another i.e. black v. white v. latinx are impossible to define biologically. This is not the same as sex, as even when there are intersex exceptions to the general rule, the vast majority of points cluster within two categories and it does not make statistical sense to add a third. I recommend The Race Myth

Thanks!

>I think the coolest thing I’ve found is the evolutionary reason why people reject evolution. I haven’t published it yet but, when it comes out, its probably going to cause a minor shit storm.

Please post to reddit when it's published.

In case anyone wants to check out the above mentioned books:

Chimpanzee Politics by Frans de Waal

The Paleolithic Prescription by Boyd and Eaton

Exiles from Eden by Glantz and Pearce

Primates in the Classroom by Gary Bernhard

Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Miller and Kanzawa

Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan

Keep in mind also that humans are just big monkeys, and all the primates spend a lot of time in grooming activities. It's one of the primary means towards social cohesion. If you haven't before, read Chimpanzee Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562)--it illustrates a ton of behaviors that are shared between humans and the hairier apes.

The discussion of the exact chemical pathways is also very interesting.

The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. It's one of the best books I've read about the topic and I've read quite a few. I double majored in psychology and philosophy as an undergrad then went onto grad school for clinical psych, so I'm very familiar with all the literature on the subject. The Moral Animal is the most accurate and easy-to-understand book I can think of.

Chimpanzee Politics is an excellent read.

I made up the names and situation there, but you may find Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes to be an interesting and relevant read.

Yup. Read the The Race Myth. Fascinating book.

Yes, according to Lynn’s latest book, psychopathic personality explains the other half that IQ does not explain

If anyone's interested, he's reading this book.

For the rough history read A Brief History Of The Mind by William H. Calvin.

A more speculative read is Adam's Tongue: How Humans Made Language, How Language Made Humans by Derek Bickerton.

The latter focuses on how language per se differentiates us from most other species (except some social insects: bees and ants). But it also reviews our history.

The biggest collection of Philosophy of Cognitive Science is probably in the PhilPapers collection.

A couple of my favorite books in this area:

• The Enigma of Reason
  
• The Centered Mind: What the Science of Working Memory Shows Us
  
• Attention (New Problems of Philosophy)

Things to Buy
http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Years-Hanna-Schissler/dp/0691058202

http://www.amazon.com/Redneck-Manifesto-Hillbillies-Americas-Scapegoats/dp/0684838648

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/039332169X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214

http://www.amazon.com/Andromeda-Strain-Michael-Crichton/dp/006170315X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225932164&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Classroom-Evolutionary-Perspective-Childrens/dp/0870236113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261589323&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Paleolithic-Prescription-Program-Exercise-Design/dp/0060916354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261589224&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Exiles-Eden-Psychotherapy-Evolutionary-Perspective/dp/0393700739/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261589294&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261589183&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/YOU-Updated-Expanded-Insiders-Healthier/dp/0061473677/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263303625&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/YOU-Updated-Expanded-Insiders-Healthier/dp/0061473677/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263303625&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297305735&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/New-Sugar-Busters-Cut-Trim/dp/0345469585/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297305615&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038583/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297305420&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Skinny-Bastard-Kick-Ass-Getting/product-reviews/0762435402/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Rules-Eaters-Michael-Pollan/dp/014311638X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297305420&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Classroom-Evolutionary-Perspective-Childrens/dp/0870236113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261589323&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Exiles-Eden-Psychotherapy-Evolutionary-Perspective/dp/0393700739/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261589294&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Paleolithic-Prescription-Program-Exercise-Design/dp/0060916354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261589224&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261589183&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Strange-Land-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0441788386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258348123&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Full-Plate-Diet-Great-Healthy/dp/1885167717/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266199288&sr=1-13

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-War-Scott-Adams/dp/0740747886/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_9

http://www.amazon.com/Full-Plate-Diet-Great-Healthy/dp/1885167717/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266199288&sr=1-13

http://www.amazon.com/Blindsight-Peter-Watts/dp/0765319640/

http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Years-Hanna-Schissler/dp/0691058202

http://www.amazon.com/Redneck-Manifesto-Hillbillies-Americas-Scapegoats/dp/0684838648

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/039332169X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

http://www.amazon.com/Andromeda-Strain-Michael-Crichton/dp/006170315X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225932164&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Manifesto-Against-Christianity-Judaism/dp/1559708204

http://www.amazon.com/Mayo-Clinic-Family-Health-Book/dp/1603200770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267299889&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Body-Sculpting-Bible-Men-Revised/dp/1578262380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298573232&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Mens-Health-Big-Book-Exercises/dp/1605295507
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594866279/ref=asc_df_15948662791442125?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=pg-1583-01-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=1594866279

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0345498461/ref=asc_df_03454984611442018?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=pg-1583-01-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=0345498461

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Runners-Handbook-13-Week-Walk-Run/dp/1553650875/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298575384&sr=8-1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574581891694514228.html

http://www.amazon.com/Edible-Wild-Plants-Foods-Adventure/dp/1423601505

http://www.amazon.com/Shoppers-Guide-Organic-Food/dp/1857028406/ref=sr_1_16?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308213453&sr=1-16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Portrait_of_the_Artist_as_a_Young_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_of_consciousness_writing

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/08/30/all-time-100-best-nonfiction-books/#fast-food-nation-by-eric-schlosser

http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Strange-Land-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0441788386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258348123&sr=8-1

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/sleep-apnea/continuous-positive-airway-pressure-cpap-for-obstructive-sleep-apnea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye

http://www.amazon.com/Catch-22-Joseph-Heller/dp/0684833395

http://www.amazon.com/Starting-Strength-2nd-Mark-Rippetoe/dp/0976805421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253993543&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Aero-Speed-Hyperformance-Jump-Rope/dp/B00017XHO8

http://www.invisibleshoe.com/#ecwid:category=135066&mode=product&product=278983

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe621670756c0575741d&m=fe7215707561047d7315&ls=fde817797d6d037977177974&l=fe9215717260007a70&s=fe2d13707d600478751c72&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe2e167375640d75711576&r=0

http://www.amazon.com/Element-Surprise-Navy-Seals-Vietnam/dp/0804105812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304634342&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivor-Eyewitness-Account-Operation/dp/0316067598

http://www.amazon.com/Diving-Bell-Butterfly-Memoir-Death/dp/0375701214/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312848167&sr=8-1

Political
Iraq Research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Tawhid_Wal-Jihad

http://www.ontheissues.org/Drugs.htm#Barack_Obama

Congress Related

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r110query.html

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

http://www.usdoj.gov/

http://www.issuedictionary.com/Barack_Obama.cgi

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:75:./temp/~r110y7HfAa::

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists
/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

http://allafrica.com/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/??

Health & Exercise
Green Tea

http://www.teatrekker.com/store/tea/green/green+-+japan.php

http://www.o-cha.com/brew.htm

http://www.ehow.com/how_2080066_steep-loose-leaf-tea.html

http://cooksshophere.com/products/tea/green_tea.htm

http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=146

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tea

http://blackdragonteabar.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

http://blackdragonteabar.blogspot.com/

https://www.itoen.com/leaf/index.cfm

http://www.maiko.ne.jp/english/

http://www.mellowmonk.com/buyGreenTea.htm
http://www.o-cha.com/home.php

http://www.denstea.com/

http://www.theteaavenue.com/chgrtea.html

http://www.teafrog.com/teas/finum-tea-brewing-basket.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-Myth-Pretend-America/dp/0452286581

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Race-Jefferson-Fish/dp/0786754362

> That probably explains why politics only exists in the minds of Humans and nowhere else, right?

http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfPack.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q664cyqDc8

https://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562

http://understanddolphins.tripod.com/dolphinsocializationbehavior.html

Il parlait de ce livre. C'est un concentré de racisme sous couvert 'scientifique'.

isso acho que acontece em qualquer lugar. Eu li um livro que falava sobre chimpanzés (https://www.amazon.com.br/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-Among-Apes/dp/0801886562 esse daqui, tem naquele site que começa com lib e termina com gen.io, mas só tem em inglês), e eles têm uma identidade de grupo muito forte, tanto que são bem cruéis com membros de outros grupos (essa parte do livro assusta um pouco se você considerar que nós temos 99% do DNA igual ao deles).

Eu vi um texto na internet falando sobre esse comportamento, chimpanzés formando grupos para exterminar outros chimpanzés de grupos vizinhos. E esse livro confirma isso, mas também mostra um outro lado deles que é bom, tem uns casos de chimpanzés machos (se você ler o livro vai ver que eles são o cúmulo da trogloditagem, sério, nem vou comentar sobre porque é grotesco) que adotam uns filhotes órfãos e tratam eles como se fossem as mães.

Esse mérito de um animal se bom ou ruim soa meio estranho, mas ainda acho válido o comparativo com o homem. Se pegar o caso de como o nazismo surgiu, por exemplo.

O povo alemão do tempo de hitler sabia ler e era muito bem educado, uma "civilização top" do ponto de vista cultural. O país estava numa crise, um ambiente que crie tensão nas pessoas é importante, o que acaba ferindo essa condição de racionalidade que a gente considera intrínseca do ser humano.

O resto se desenrola do mesmo jeito que os chimpanzés, ele criou um 'grupo vizinho' e deu no que deu.

Por isso que se deve ter cautela quando acontecem situações que tentam dividir as pessoas em grupos antagônicos. O resultado disso é barbárie e o outro perde a condição de humano quando esse processo chega no auge. E isso tá presente em diferentes esferas de poder, a divisão em facções criminosas e a maneira cada vez mais violenta que elas se enfrentam também dá pra ser usada como exemplo.

Não sei como resolver esse "problema", mas chamar a atenção pro fato, que essa tendência existe e as consequências de sucumbirmos a ela, acho que é um começo. Claro que tem gente que vai ficar p da vida, principalmente por causa de religião, que não dá pra comparar o homem com o macaco e sei lá o que mais.

Bom, chega. Escrevi demais, mas o livro é bem legal. Eu li ele numa época que tava meio pessimista e acabou me dando novas esperanças.

Faltou uma coisa, não pense que eu me considero "imunizado" desse tipo de comportamento só porque "entendi" isso. Os 99% ainda tão tudo aqui nas minhas células só esperando uma fraquejada.

Aristotelianism. The most serious philosophers around are Aristotelians.

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Goodness-Philippa-Foot/dp/019926547X

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Ethical-Facts-Evolution-Connectionism/dp/0262532786

http://www.amazon.com/What-Good-Why-Ethics-Well-Being/dp/0674032373

Excuse me as I'm just stumbling about on reddit, but I came across this post's title and was intrigued enough to dip deeper. Doing this mostly to save these links for later but am up for a robust discussion on the matter.

Across all scientists in the US, only 6% identify as Republican and 9% as conservative: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

The only empirical study of evolutionary psychologists suggests that PhD students who self-identify as adaptationists are much less conservative than the general public, and no more conservative than non-adaptationists: http://www.unm.edu/~tybur/docs/Testing_the_Controversy.pdf

There is nevertheless a perception that evolutionary psychologists are coming from a right-wing standpoint: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26785604

There are well-known cases where evolutionary psychologists have published very bad science with clear ideological bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

Published criticism of evolutionary psychology comes generally not from social psychologists, but cognitive scientists, neurobiologists, biological anthropologists (EDIT and philosophers of science):

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/adapting-minds

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KeqiKNFa3YgC

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Getting-Darwin-Wrong-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/1845402073

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Alas-Poor-Darwin-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0099283190

https://instruct.uwo.ca/psychology/371g/Smith2001.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.003

Innate sex differences in children would be a likely implication of the veracity of evolutionary psychology. However there is little solid evidence for sex differences in children's brains:

https://www.amazon.com/Pink-Brain-Blue-Differences-Troublesome/dp/0547394594/

https://sites.google.com/site/dianehalperncmc//books/sex-differences-in-cognitive-abilities

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16366817

There has indeed been a lot of work done on evolutionary psychology. It's a field that is often criticized for producing untestable hypotheses and overly simple answers to complex questions, but nonetheless it can give some insight into why people act the way they do.

Here's a couple books to start you out:

The Moral Animal

How the Mind Works

You’re right. Humans are not like dogs. But if you are claiming that basic operant processes don’t effect humans, you’re wrong. However, with language, humans are vastly different from all other species. Skinner really did not capture this complexity within his research/writing at an adequate level. However, this guy might have: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Contextual-Behavioral-Science-Understanding/dp/1626259135

Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity

I don't believe that was being suggested at all. I believe he was merely describing the "hard problem".

Roughly: even though we've mapped the sensory inputs and impulse pathways and can predict which parts of the brain light up when presented with different stimuli, and even can translate back to imagined sensory sources based on scans alone to such a degree that we can say "he sees a tree right now in his imagination" and that sort of thing, we still have zero understanding of how or why any of that data should give rise to the subjective experience of how it feels to see a tree in one's imagination.

-edit- Here's Stevan Harnad's short and easy to read description of the "hard problem": Correlation vs. Causality: How/Why the Mind/Body Problem Is Hard, a commentary on Nicholas Humphrey's How to Solve the Mind-Body Problem (Journal of Consciousness Studies).

> My argument was that minds are turing machines because as far as we know, minds are matter

That's false, my friend. We know nothing of the kind. It is one hypothesis among several, and with less evidence than the other available ones.

> and as far as we know minds are matter because that's what science tells us

False again. 'Science' (as if there was one dogmatic source/authority that spoke to you with a single voice) in fact has no idea what the relationship is of mind to matter. There are thousands of scientists, who issue books which are contradictory to one another. For example Raymond Tallis, a prominent neuro-scientist, argues that mind =/= matter:

https://www.amazon.com/Aping-Mankind-Neuromania-Darwinitis-Misrepresentation/dp/1844652734

So the question of the relationship of the mind to the body is one of the currently unsolved problems, and a central question in philosophy. There are many things which are not matter, such as secondary qualities, and things like numbers.

> In absolutely no way is this circular

The reason it is circular is because in OP, the author omitted one of Kurt Godel's explanations for the Incompleteness Theorem -- the one that said that mind =/= matter -- and I corrected him on that. 4-5 replies later you jump in, and presuppose that mind = matter, oblivious to the fact that this was already discussed and challenged before you ever were in the picture.

Frans de Waal's books on the chimps he studied at the same facility, such as Chimpanzee Politics, are incredibly eye-opening from a r/likeus perspective.

Mama was one of the chimps in the group he researched. In her day, she was one formidable primate. She was even something of a kingmaker—her recognition of a would-be alpha male would help swing all the adult females over to that chimp's side.

It's really sad to hear about her death after reading two de Waal books where she features so prominently!

I wrote a quick script to search the full text of HPMOR and return everything italicized and in title case, which I think got most of the books mentioned in the text:

Book title|Author|Mentioned in chapter(s)|Links|Notes

---|:---|:---|:---|:---
Encyclopaedia Britannica| |7|Wikipedia|Encyclopaedia
Financial Times| |7|Wikipedia|Newspaper
The Feynman Lectures on Physics|Richard P. Feynman|8|Wikipedia|Full text is available online here
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases|Amos Tversky|8|Amazon|
Language in Thought and Action|S.I. Hayakawa|8|Amazon Wikipedia |
Influence: Science and Practice|Robert B. Cialdini|8|Wikipedia|Textbook. See also Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making|Reid Hastie and Robyn Dawes|8|Amazon |Textbook
Godel, Escher, Bach|Douglas Hofstadter|8, 22|Amazon Wikipedia|
A Step Farther Out|Jerry Pournelle|8|Amazon|
The Lord of the Rings|J.R.R. Tolkien|17|Wikipedia|
Atlas Shrugged|Ayn Rand|20, 98|Wikipedia|
Chimpanzee Politics|Frans de Waal|24|Amazon|
Thinking Physics: Understandable Practical Reality|Lewis Carroll Epstein|35, 102|Amazon|
Second Foundation|Isaac Asimov|86|Wikipedia|Third novel in the Foundation Series
Childcraft: A Guide For Parents| |91|Amazon|Not useful if your child has a mysterious dark side

Also, this probably isn't technically what the OP was asking, but since the script returned fictional titles along with real ones, I went ahead and included them too:

Book title|Mentioned in chapter(s)

---|:---
The Quibbler|6, 27, 38, 63, 72, 86
Hogwarts: A History|8, 73, 79
Modern Magical History|8
Magical Theory|16
Intermediate Potion Making|17
Occlumency: The Hidden Arte|21
Daily Prophet|22, 25, 26, 27, 35, 38, 53, 69, 77, 84, 86, 108
Magical Mnemonics|29
The Skeptical Wizard|29
Vegetable Cunning|48
Beauxbatons: A History|63
Moste Potente Potions|78
Toronto Magical Tribune|86
New Zealand Spellcrafter's Diurnal Notice|86
American Mage|86

As others mentioned, TVTropes has a virtually-exhaustive list of allusions to other works, which includes books that aren't explicitly named in the text, like Ender's Game

Great topic-related book, Chimpanzee Politics. Includes interesting things like:

• Planning ahead via deception to obtain food (burying food so that stronger chimps don't steal it, then sneaking back later to find it)
  
  
• Premeditated murder (two weaker chimps wait until zookeepers are gone to kill alpha chimp, then assume joint leadership in the power vacuum)

My rebuttal to phrase (B) in your thesis:

>To say that degrees are the reason for a depressed middle class in the States is reductionistic. It's the fallacy of the single cause. If we take this literally, all we need is one other argument for the depression of the middle class to disconfirm this in its entirety. Here's one: the flow of goods and services in America disproportionately distributes wealth between the middle class and upper class in favor the upper class and contributes to rising inequality, depressing the middle class.

Your response:

>Not bad. But there's a flaw in your logic.
>
>I said that degrees are the underlying reason. Which implies that there may be other reasons above it, but distillation will get you to degrees. To do that, you have to understand how Lean works and do it as a step analysis starting with the abstract problem: depressed middle class income. And I share this as a person who once managed people and was directly connected with Human Resources on multiple occasions.
>
>Why is the middle class depressed? Because middle class people aren't making enough money.
>
>Why aren't people making enough money? Because employers aren't paying high enough wages.
>
>Why aren't employers paying high enough wages? Because wages are fair market and determined based on the role. The role isn't worth paying more.
>
>Why isn't the role worth paying more? Because it's low skill labor.
>
>Why is it low skill labor? Because it doesn't require advanced education.
>
>If you sat in front of an executive and asked that exact set of questions, or at least some derivation thereof, you'd end at up the same conclusion. But wait...it then opens up an obvious contradiction.
>
>If the labor doesn't require advanced education, then why does your job posting require or even desire a college degree?
>
>To which you'll get one of two answers: "It's the company standard policy to require everyone have a college education" (most likely) or "we do it to help weed out applicants".
>
>If it's standard policy to require something that isn't the standard (and it isn't by all statistics available), you are acknowledging, by correlation using the step process above, that this "something" is depressing the middle class.
>
>Your example:
>
>the flow of goods and services in America disproportionately distributes wealth between the middle class and upper class in favor the upper class and contributes to rising inequality, depressing the middle class.
>
>Is then debunked by the same step process. Why is the upper class able to disproportionately do that? Because middle class people aren't making enough money (which is the first step above, and leads you to...where?
>
>Goods and services and disproportion are a byproduct of the issue, far displaced from the root cause.

I know I shouldn't, but I'll play the "he said, she said" game for just a moment here, as you did say, and I quote, "(B) Degrees are the reason for a depressed middle class in the States". However, this is a bit different than the title, "They are the true underlying cause of the depressed middle class in the States"... so, I digress.

The epistemological claim that a proper step analysis reveals the true causal chain of events in a complex system is a bit specious, although a good step analysis absolutely has its benefits, and your line of reasoning is absolutely correct. However, it is also a literal exercise in repetitive reductionism, as each step could be explained by more than one cause. It causes us to fall prey to the availability heuristic, as well as confirmation bias, to some degree:

• Consider a hypothetical, to answer your first-level abstraction: why is middle class depressed? Well, because middle class people aren't making enough money... or, perhaps, the upper class is making too much money. Why is the upper class making too much money? Well, [insert answer here]
  
• Another hypothetical: why is the middle class depressed? Maybe, perhaps, the middle class is depressed because the costs of goods, as measured by the consumer price index, are rising disproportionately to the rise in middle class income (which seems to be a more economically accurate estimation of the situation). Why is this happening? Well, [insert answer here]
  
• One more hypothetical (that I hear often where I am from): Why is the middle class depressed? The middle class is depressed because they don't make enough money. Why aren't people making enough money? Because the government taxes too much. Why does... [finish. question here]
  
  All of these services the idea that, in your words, distillation will not always get you to degrees-- distillation will get you to where you want to go with your argument. Despite our best efforts to be rational and unbiased, reasoning is a fickle tool that ultimately evolved in us to convince others (more on this here). As an example, you might have even demonstrated your biased reasoning in the following:
  
  >Your example:
  >
  >the flow of goods and services in America disproportionately distributes wealth between the middle class and upper class in favor the upper class and contributes to rising inequality, depressing the middle class.
  >
  >Is then debunked by the same step process. Why is the upper class able to disproportionately do that? Because middle class people aren't making enough money (which is the first step above, and leads you to...where?
  
  Where in my statement was it said that the upper class is doing this? In a genuine step analysis, shouldn't the next question logically be "why does the flow of goods and services in America disproportionately distribute wealth between the middle class and upper class in favor the upper class?"
  
  *******************
  
  In response to the following:
  
  >If you sat in front of an executive and asked that exact set of questions, or at least some derivation thereof, you'd end at up the same conclusion. But wait...it then opens up an obvious contradiction.
  >
  >If the labor doesn't require advanced education, then why does your job posting require or even desire a college degree?
  >
  >To which you'll get one of two answers: "It's the company standard policy to require everyone have a college education" (most likely) or "we do it to help weed out applicants".
  >
  >If it's standard policy to require something that isn't the standard (and it isn't by all statistics available), you are acknowledging, by correlation using the step process above, that this "something" is depressing the middle class.
  
  For reasons mentioned earlier, I'm not very confident that you and I would come to the same conclusion in a step analysis of the question, "why is the middle class depressed"?. However, let's table that for a moment, and assume that I happen to agree with you. In order to discuss it, I need to know what field or profession you're envisioning in this scenario. I ask because these conversations are absolutely not the case in fields like healthcare, and the differences between the professions you're envisioning versus healthcare might shed light on some of the relevant mechanisms here.
  
  I conclude that college degrees are among one of many reasons the middle class is depressed, but it is yet to be seen how it might be playing the primary driving role that you've proposed.

>This was something assumed as a truism in the past, but it is considered false now for no real reason outside of political correctness.

No, its considered false now because its recognized to be a load of crap.

Seriously, this:

>I believe Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid to be fairly scientific classification systems if we go by evolutionary lineage.

That's some ignorant crap. Where did you go to school, the 18th century?

Here, read this. Learn something.

Historisch onderzoek sure, antropologisch onderzoek, sociologisch onderzoek, psychologisch onderzoek.

Als je bijvoorbeeld gaat bediscussieren of religie al dan niet goed is voor de samenleving, dan verwacht ik dat je psychologische studies over de relatie tussen religiositeit en fysieke en mentale gezondheid bespreekt, dat is namelijk een veel onderzocht topic geweest de laatste paar decennia.

Bijvoorbeeld van dit standaardwerk, p. 313:

> Over a century of research on the connections between religion, spirituality, and health has found a moderate association between religious involvement and better health status. This positive effect is found at both the individual and group levels, even when many possible confounding variables are controlled. Quite a bit of research suggests that this association is causal, that is, religious involvement appears to protect individuals against disease and promote health (Ellison & Levin 1998; Thoresen, Harris, & Oman, 2001; Chatters, 2000; Levin, 1994; Levin & Chatters, 1998). Only a few investigators now claim there is no relation between religion and health (e.g., Sloan & Bagiella, 2002), but their work has been criticized for selectively ignoring important studies and minimizing strong overall patterns (Koenig, Hays et al., 1999).

Ik bedoel, je kunt het daarmee eens zijn of niet, maar iemand als Dawkins schijnt zich er niet eens van bewust te zijn dat dergelijk onderzoek is gedaan en dergelijke literatuur bestaat.

Of een ander voorbeeld, van een artikel van Teemu Taira (New Atheism as Identity Politics):

> Harris’s work appears more informed at first glance, but it is
difficult to find awareness in his writings of studies in religious studies, sociology (of religion), or anthropology (of religion), although he makes bold claims about what religion is and how it functions. it is thus not surprising that responses from academics who study religion have been critical. Scholars specializing in islam
and the Middle east have complained of Harris’s lack of accuracy when discussing the history, politics, and religion of predominantly islamic countries (Dickson 2010). Scott Atran — an anthropologist of religion with credentials both in the evolutionary study of religion and the profiling of suicide bombers — has pointed
to several problems in Harris’s work: lack of data, ignorance of the empirical study of religion, selectivity of examples and idiosyncratic interpretations (for Atran’s views, see http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html, access date: 12 July
2010, Atran 2010). other scholars have extended the list of criticisms to Harris’s apparently careless interpretation of statistics, mixing of correlation and causation, narrow or selective conceptualization of religion (Bentley 2008; Hulsether 2008;
Reader 2008), and using pro-israel activist Alan Dershowitz as an authority in analyzing the Israel/Palestine conflict (Bradley and Tate 2010: 5–6).

Van mij mag iedereen overal een kijk op hebben, maar je moet niet pretenderen dat je een wetenschappelijke kijk op religie hebt wanneer je geen flauw idee hebt van wat de wetenschap nou eigenlijk over religie zegt.

Ik moet toch ook op de hoogte zijn van wat de huidige staat van zaken is in de wetenschap met betrekking tot, laten we zeggen, quantummechanica, voordat ik daar vergaande uitspraken over doe? Anders klets ik gewoon uit mijn nek.

Quantummechanica is een erg theoretisch onderwerp terwijl religie een sociaal alledaags fenomeen is en daarom kunnen we daar allemaal wel over meepraten, maar als je de wetenschap hoog in het vaandel hebt staan moet je niet zomaar dingen gaan claimen die gewoon niet gebaseerd zijn op wetenschap.

>It's easy. Consciousness is a complicated behavior of complicated brains. It really happens, and its a physical effect. All squared. Consciousness is no more of an illusion than a rock is. Its also no more mystical, magical, or platonic than a rock is.

Unfortunately it's not that easy. That might be what Dennett tries to push in his pop-phil books, but there are strong criticism to his view. If there weren't there would be no hard problem of consciousness.

Again Dennett solves it by claiming consciousness simply does not exist and it's some sort of illusion, but that begs the question of what exactly is undergoing the illusion.

Also there are good arguments for the immateriality of thought as well.

...

>They can point a magnetic imager at you head and with some AI interpretation reliably tell what you are thinking about. It's rudimentary, of course, but it works. What is going on in your brain is intelligible and functionally analyzable, in principle. In practice, its slow going but it is happening. You are now going to try to tell me that this is not really consciousness, but some precursor or afteraffect of the real consciouness, because real consciousness is some dualistic nonsense that explains nothing.

What we see with MRIs is not consciousness. It's patterns in the brain and there is a LOT open to interpretation even in light of recent discoveries. In fact recently the famous Libett argument against free will was debunked.

In fact a disappointing truth we are realising now (in spite of regular sensationalized claims) is that we cannot precisely correlate what happens in our brain with what we consciously experience. Given the same perceptual input one’s mental states will vary dramatically depending upon mood and circumstance.
Now this does not necessarily entail any dualism, but it does not bode well for naturalism (and in particular the Dennett's type) either.

A good book on the topic is Raymond Tallis' "Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity". He's a neuroscientist and philosopher (and he's not religious at all, so he's not arguing for a religeous soul) Apparently Dennett was quite miffed by the book too.

..

>You are now going to try to tell me that this is not really consciousness, but some precursor or afteraffect of the real consciouness, because real consciousness is some dualistic nonsense that explains nothing.

That some loaded wording.

First define exactly "dualism". There are many forms of dualism and many of those reject the idea that mind and body are actually separate (substance dualism). One example hylomorphic dualism does not claim the mind is a separate entity of the brain/body even if it has immaterial characteristics (at least rational minds).

Moreover IF dualism explains consciousness better than materialism (which it might), then by definition it's a better model of reality, whether you like it or not. In fact there are advantages in rejecting the purely eliminative naturalist view.

So claiming "dualism explains nothing" is false... as naturalism ultimately also explains nothing as it needs to resort to "brute facts". I would also argue that naturalism is an idea that started failing when actual modern physics came along since it's still rooted in the now superseded rigid mechanistic and deterministic Newtonian picture.

I guess maybe you picked that up from Dennett that all dualism must be useless, but Dennett is a hypocrite whiner when it comes to critics of his view. Frankly Dennett (and some other naturalists) seem to fall in the same sort of "narrow dogmatic view" that they accuse others of doing.

..

>Imagine you draw a line with a equation. It has no dots, it goes on in each direction infinitely. Here is a relation with no relata. The equation and the line both. Now lets intersect several lines, such that they enclose an area. Without referring to any dots, the area emerges as a complex relationship between all the line. Relationships between relationships. Now you could go around and drop in a dot at all the corners, but that gains you nothing. The area is already completely defined. You can cry foul here and say that I have cheated. You can say that I still have relata, but the lines are now the relata. A line establishes a form of location, an anchor, and so the area and the intersect points are the relationships. But then you have proven my point - the term relata and relationship are interchangeable, and choose to define any situation with relata over here and relationship there is completely arbitrary, and thus meaningless.

The equation example does not solve your problem. First lines and points are still abstractions themselves. Second, equations by definitions describe relationships, but these are meaningless if there are no relata that exhibit them. That's how you discriminate between a good model and a bad model in science, in fact.

So either one accepts that there is hard platonism (i.e. relations exist as universals) or one accepts that there must be relata (which then opens several other possibilities).

>Who says that science should be reliable and useful? Utilitarianism is just as arbitrary as any other value system.

But I am not talking ab out utilitatianism. Science does not have to be useful, but it needs certain normative judgments to fuction. if we deny those then we deny science itself.

In fact the idea that "only relations exist" is a forced 'reductio ad absurdum' that one tries to force into the discourse once they realize naturalism basically breaks down.

..

>Well wouldn't that be lovely? A pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. An absolute knowledge of all truth. A unicorn. Nice to have, but is not to be had at any price.

Well maybe it's time we pay that price and ditch naturalism :P

Hi Clint. I'm honoured that you've created a reddit account just to reply to me and despite your snarky tone, I think this could be an interesting discussion!

>I supported my contention of science denialism using pre-established criteria, not by "presenting" any form of evolutionary psychology. I certainly did not present anything, I merely evaluated the quality of a talk.

Not at all, since it's impossible to claim a case of science denialism without presenting the scientific position that is supposedly being denied. Your reference for "What is evolutionary psychology?", the basis for the position you think Watson is unfairly rejecting, is this resource page which describes a very specific form of evo psych - one that is at the very least controversial.

>The fact of a talk being poorly-wrought says nothing at all about the quality of its target, that is fallacious thinking.

I'm not sure what this means or how it applies to anything I've said. If the quality of the target is so low that it doesn't constitute "science", then no science denialism can occur.

>I have never once heard the phrase "Santa Barbara Church of Psychology"; and my background is psychology (University of Illinois, not UCSB or any UC). Perhaps this slur was common in some anti-evolution psychology circles, I would love to see evidence it was a broadly set attitude in the last decade.

The term was popularised by Laland and Brown in their book: "Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour". I've never heard it used by people in "anti-evolutionary psychology circles", as Laland and Brown are both evolutionary psychologists.

It also appears again later in a book chapter by Gray, Heaney and Fairhall, who are all evolutionary psychologists, which was published in the book: "From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology" (a collation of essays written mostly by evolutionary psychologists).

As I mention elsewhere in this thread though, even if we want to say that the specific name isn't popular (I can't exactly cite conversations I've had so I'll concede the point for the sake of argument), we still obviously have to accept that it's referring to one particular approach in evo psych which has caused a schism in the field. That is, I'm sure you're aware that there are broadly two factions within evo psych (the Gray chapter I link to discusses this in more detail but it's a fairly well-discussed issue).

>Not only did I not let it die, I published this greatly expanded version in an edited book volume (13 Reasons to Doubt[1] ). If anyone "tore it apart" that escaped my notice.

It's just that many of your arguments seemed to be willful misrepresentations of what she said and your defence of the claim that she was engaging in "science denialism" seemed to be entirely predicated on the particular form of evo psych that is problematic.

In other words, even if we agree that she didn't do the best job in attacking the pop-psych reports and the bad evo psych in the field, we still have to agree that it exists and it can't be science denialism to reject it.

>Watson herself never said much of anything. She also (as far as I can tell) stopped giving the talk altogether.

I imagine she never said anything as she probably never read your article, can't say for sure though. As for giving the talk again, she did present it a few times after your article so I don't think we should try to find any correlation between the two things there.

>Before you rush to reply, I advise you to at least skim this update. It documents 90 different errors, with supporting citations backing them up and strongly (if I may say) refutes Watson's "it was just pop ev psych" claim.

I did read through it before responding the first time but I feel like most of your arguments are pedantic and detracted heavily from any point you were making. Like the bit about her using the picture of the wrong King Louis. I mean, sure, that's sloppy on her part and if she's getting paid to present then that's something she needs to work harder on but if I were to critique someone's position then I'm not going to include a statement to effect of: "And furthermore, they used the form "its" when they should have used the contraction "it's" and so they were wrong about that too".

In the spirit of constructive discussion though, I'll skip all the points that are more pedantic (and the silly attempts at calling her out for "sexism" and "racism"), and focus on some points which I think deserve response:

>She declared a paper she has not read to be “not science”

To be fair, the reason she "hasn't read it" is because it doesn't exist. It wasn't published, it was just a result of market analysis by the shopping centre. Your complaint is correct in that funding doesn't necessarily discredit a study but I think the charitable interpretation of her position here is that obviously if no study exists, and it was done purely for the shopping centre to publish a short article in the newspaper, then it's not really science as we know it.

>No one believes that just any behavior must be an adaptation. Behaviors and features are chosen for testing when they show coherent function which is not explained by existing understanding.

This is unfair. The problem of hyperadaptationism is so common that it even has it's own phrase "just-so stories". You can suggest that no good scientist does that, and I'd agree (and probably Watson would too), but her talk is specifically about bad science in the field and that certainly does occur.

>The idea that Clark and Hatfield “set out” to establish some evolutionary account could hardly be more mistaken. The purpose of the study was to try to arbitrate between competing theories. They recounted dominant theories of the time, both the evolutionary and the cultural account without praising or disparaging either

You've misunderstood her claim here. The thing taken as a "given" is the idea that men enjoy casual sex more than women and women only do it for babies or status. She then claims that the authors take that assumption behind their findings and try to give it an evolutionary explanation.

The very end of the section of her quote that you present contradicts your interpretation that she's talking about taking the evolutionary account as a given.

>In a presentation condemning the concoction of untestable “just so stories” Watson asked her audience to disregard the findings of a dozen scientific studies across multiple countries and decades in lieu of her ad hoc story about female psychology for which no evidence is given other than a single assault case from the news.

Her claim is that these studies are seriously methodologically flawed. It's not a rejection of scientific evidence when based on that assumption (of course we can argue whether she is right or wrong but scientific evidence isn't infallible and always acceptable regardless of the methodology behind it).

>Her explanation was contradicted by two different papers she cited herself. Guéguen 2011 (see 24:30) found that when propositioned by an attractive male, 57% of women agree to go to their apartment—just the activity Watson said women were too fearful to do (Guéguen, 2011). At point 58 Watson favorably referred to Conley 2011 which also contradicted this point: …perceived danger variables did not predict acceptance of the [sexual offer] for women or for men.

Her argument wasn't that they were fearful, it was that they would face social repercussions and judgement, which seems to be supported by the papers she cites.

I can go into more detail for the rest of your post if you like but these appear to form the main basis for your claims and when we remove all the pointless jabs at her that have no relevance to her points, there's no much left to form a rebuttal against her. I mean, even just reading that section of "sexism" was frankly painful and it ended up reading like those conspiracy theorists who complain about "SJW's" and "political correctness gone mad!"...

I used to love watching the big hits as well, but as I've gotten older I have a much harder time with it. I think part of it is when I was younger I didn't realize the gravity of the injuries whereas now I can put myself in the players shoes a lot better.

As to why - we are violent species. Read Chimpanzee Politics. It will explain a lot.

Regarding the number of kids that die playing the sport, did you know that 40k people die each year in in America in car wrecks? That over 90k people die each year in America due to medical mistakes? That means on average 246 people died today due to a medical fuck up and 109 died in a car wreck. But no one mourns them like a football player because they aren't famous or playing a game for a living.

I'm not trying to belittle the impact of the football injuries. I'm just trying to put it in perspective with common non-illness causes of death in this country. I haven't run the numbers but I'm willing to bet the incidence of football related death is much lower than those two categories.