You say “the neural circuitry of anger is a reproductive organ as surely as your liver” and “the evolutionary purpose of anger is to increase inclusive genetic fitness.”
I don’t believe you have enough evidence to assert these statements. All you know is that “angry ancestors had more kids” but you DON’T know that it’s as a result of the anger. It could have happened that, say, the same ancestors that could run faster also happened to have the capacity for anger. As a result of their faster running, they reproduced/survived, and so did anger.
I liken this to classic studies on the effects of divorce on children. Of course, kids end up worse off with parents that divorce, but all else equal, divorce may very well be GOOD for the kid. Similarly, although here angry ancestors did have more kids, anger may very well be BAD for reproduction/survival. I’m sure there’s also a good cynical example, too, like that the reason the dollar was the dominant currency through the 20th century was because it was green.
It’s possible that anger was a byproduct of something else which is adaptive (certainly such evolutionary byproducts exist)… but it seems pretty unlikely in this case. Anger is a rather complicated thing that seems to have its own modular brain systems; it doesn’t seem to be a byproduct of anything else.
The possibility of an “adaptation” being in fact an exaptatation or even a spandrel is yet another reason to be incredibly careful about purposing teleology into a discussion about evolutionarily-derived mechanisms.
Yes dude! That’s showing rigor. And PnrJulius’ comment that Boris’ comment “seems unlikely” is precisely the soft-serve sludge that rigorous thinkers like Boris here have to slog against day in and day out. Boo Julius, boo. Yay Boris, yay.
And then a roar of the crowd for TechnoGuyRob who takes the long pass from Boris and dunks on Julius in a way J’s grandbabies gonna feel when he writes “The possibility of an “adaptation” being in fact an exaptatation or even a spandrel is yet another reason to be incredibly careful about purposing teleology into a discussion about evolutionarily-derived mechanisms.”
It’s problematic how stoked this exchange makes me. I’ma say it will not prove adaptive.
You say “the neural circuitry of anger is a reproductive organ as surely as your liver” and “the evolutionary purpose of anger is to increase inclusive genetic fitness.”
I don’t believe you have enough evidence to assert these statements. All you know is that “angry ancestors had more kids” but you DON’T know that it’s as a result of the anger. It could have happened that, say, the same ancestors that could run faster also happened to have the capacity for anger. As a result of their faster running, they reproduced/survived, and so did anger.
I liken this to classic studies on the effects of divorce on children. Of course, kids end up worse off with parents that divorce, but all else equal, divorce may very well be GOOD for the kid. Similarly, although here angry ancestors did have more kids, anger may very well be BAD for reproduction/survival. I’m sure there’s also a good cynical example, too, like that the reason the dollar was the dominant currency through the 20th century was because it was green.
It’s possible that anger was a byproduct of something else which is adaptive (certainly such evolutionary byproducts exist)… but it seems pretty unlikely in this case. Anger is a rather complicated thing that seems to have its own modular brain systems; it doesn’t seem to be a byproduct of anything else.
The possibility of an “adaptation” being in fact an exaptatation or even a spandrel is yet another reason to be incredibly careful about purposing teleology into a discussion about evolutionarily-derived mechanisms.
Yes dude! That’s showing rigor. And PnrJulius’ comment that Boris’ comment “seems unlikely” is precisely the soft-serve sludge that rigorous thinkers like Boris here have to slog against day in and day out. Boo Julius, boo. Yay Boris, yay.
And then a roar of the crowd for TechnoGuyRob who takes the long pass from Boris and dunks on Julius in a way J’s grandbabies gonna feel when he writes “The possibility of an “adaptation” being in fact an exaptatation or even a spandrel is yet another reason to be incredibly careful about purposing teleology into a discussion about evolutionarily-derived mechanisms.”
It’s problematic how stoked this exchange makes me. I’ma say it will not prove adaptive.