Did you blog about the "Fan Reactions to Character Death" panel at Gally? If so, please link me to it; I'd like to do a roundup.
It's super good to be home. Claudette (who we may be renaming Cricket) is a lot more confident and Pretty seems happier although there is occasional hissing. Meanwhile, Patty is the awesome.
Opening to weirdest email I've written in a long time: "Dear Virgin America: I was on flight VX 406 out of LAX yesterday, and -- and I know this is bizarre -- there were ants on it."
For those of you not paying attention to the sheer WTFery in New York State, we've gone from an ineffectual state government run by legislators who can't agree on anything and never ever get voted out (even the guy who slashed his girlfriend's face and then got censured and kicked out of office by the rest of the senate -- he's now suing AND running for reelection; I'm not even kidding) and a governor who came to power due to the former governor's sex scandal to a state government that can't get anything done because of all of the above and the fact that now it turns out that that governor interceded to try to stop the ex-gf of one of his aides from pressing her own domestic violence charges. FAIL.
On the Internet, I would also argue that everyone is a potential reality TV show. Which is a little scary. You wouldn't believe the ideas I come up with and cull.
That depression article commits the fallacy of not allowing some that traits can be neutral in evolution - they stay in a population because there's no particular evolutionary pressure to lose them, not because they're actively advantageous. It's a common error, when you're looking for reasons why in evolution, to assume an ultimate purpose where there isn't one; it's about competing pressures on populations, not about designing the perfect individual model. We're far from perfect models anyway, our physical structure is bizarrely harmful and inefficient. There's no particular reason why our brain structures shouldn't come with similar hiccups.
None the less - and I say this as someone who has been at the deep end of depression - I think it raises some interesting ideas about depression potentially being a moving or a creative force. Certainly I have done things, or taken decisions that were motivated by a bad brain state that turned out to be ultimately for the good. But then a lot of negative life experiences can have that effect, and depression can also have entirely the opposite effect. The whole theory assumes a very uniform and generalised view of the action of depression, as well as being over-simplistic about the causes within an individual - inheritance can play a part, but it's expression is extremely situational.
TL;DR I think there were some good points buried in there somewhere, but ultimately trying to explain something very diverse and complicated in such simplistic terms is doomed to fail. It's sort of "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" written out in longer words.
Additionally, even if a trait isn't evolution-neutral, evolution is SLOW. We've radically changed most of the basic cognitive features of our environment in less than 200 years. We're trying to do highly detailed jobs using hardware optimized for making monkeys go.
Some people feel better (my mother included) when they can repeat to themselves, "I'm sure it's for a reason, and that something better will come out of this." While I'm all for looking on the bright side, no. This is no more a useful feature than malfunctioning sinuses.
[I do respect that there are nonneurotypical conditions that may have distinctive benefits. I have yet to discover any of these benefits for depression.]
Yes indeed. Even if something had a purpose once, doesn't mean it does now - or that it's not backfiring and providing an active hinderance now our environment has changed so radically. Like the curling up action that hedgehogs evolved to protect themselves from predators (if you'll excuse the teleological wording ;) now makes them vulnerable to the far bigger killer on the roads.
I have been known to say I think Evolutionary Psychology is a misunderstood field - unfortunately, I think it's frequently misunderstood even by the people who work in the field.
That depression article commits the fallacy of not allowing some that traits can be neutral in evolution - they stay in a population because there's no particular evolutionary pressure to lose them, not because they're actively advantageous.
Well said. To much evo psych is about trying to concoct explanations for various traits. Mostly I see it being used to attempt to explain how modern western ideas about sex and gender are "natural" & inevitable, but you also have a strong current of certainty that every trait is both separate from every other trait & each of these traits must be adaptive in and of itself. The result is usually nothing more than a series of evolutionary "just-so stories".
To much evo psych is about trying to concoct explanations for various traits.
Exactly, and reverse engineering doesn't work, because it's not like a streamlined machine where every piece has a vital and efficient function brought together for an ultimate purpose; you're looking for reasons in a process that doesn't have reasons. And, as you say, making the really poor assumption that traits evolve in isolation from each other and so can be reduced to a single cause, which is nonsense. I really feel quite strongly people who study something that has "evolution" in the name should have a better understanding of how it actually works.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
redstapler as Reinette:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 04:12 pm (UTC)None the less - and I say this as someone who has been at the deep end of depression - I think it raises some interesting ideas about depression potentially being a moving or a creative force. Certainly I have done things, or taken decisions that were motivated by a bad brain state that turned out to be ultimately for the good. But then a lot of negative life experiences can have that effect, and depression can also have entirely the opposite effect. The whole theory assumes a very uniform and generalised view of the action of depression, as well as being over-simplistic about the causes within an individual - inheritance can play a part, but it's expression is extremely situational.
TL;DR I think there were some good points buried in there somewhere, but ultimately trying to explain something very diverse and complicated in such simplistic terms is doomed to fail. It's sort of "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" written out in longer words.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 04:41 pm (UTC)Some people feel better (my mother included) when they can repeat to themselves, "I'm sure it's for a reason, and that something better will come out of this." While I'm all for looking on the bright side, no. This is no more a useful feature than malfunctioning sinuses.
[I do respect that there are nonneurotypical conditions that may have distinctive benefits. I have yet to discover any of these benefits for depression.]
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 04:51 pm (UTC)I have been known to say I think Evolutionary Psychology is a misunderstood field - unfortunately, I think it's frequently misunderstood even by the people who work in the field.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 01:17 am (UTC)Well said. To much evo psych is about trying to concoct explanations for various traits. Mostly I see it being used to attempt to explain how modern western ideas about sex and gender are "natural" & inevitable, but you also have a strong current of certainty that every trait is both separate from every other trait & each of these traits must be adaptive in and of itself. The result is usually nothing more than a series of evolutionary "just-so stories".
no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 01:49 am (UTC)Exactly, and reverse engineering doesn't work, because it's not like a streamlined machine where every piece has a vital and efficient function brought together for an ultimate purpose; you're looking for reasons in a process that doesn't have reasons. And, as you say, making the really poor assumption that traits evolve in isolation from each other and so can be reduced to a single cause, which is nonsense. I really feel quite strongly people who study something that has "evolution" in the name should have a better understanding of how it actually works.