Good succinct lecture. I especially liked the comparison.between the function ( physiology ) of the liver and the function of the brain. Evolutionary psychology is " updating" psychology in general. And it's about time too.
it is so true!! the average person is fearful of a description of why people do; thinking it will limit their "choice" they are afraid of not being the boss; but the ride is actually totally fun- one way or the other...as dennett says- i'm not thinking about free "will"- i'm thinking about "free won't" !!
It's important to remember that evolution doesn't necessarily give rise to the best traits, just any old trait as long as it survives. Mutations are random, sometimes a creature may evolve some largely bad or neutral traits along with some good ones, but they'll end up surviving anyway, because the good will outweigh the bad. And there's no such thing as good, neutral or bad traits in the absolute sense of those words, rather, there's better and worse traits for survival. This explains why some creatures have goofy, pathetic traits, mutations are largely Darwinian, random, not Lamarckian, it's natural selection which tends to weed out the bad traits, but it doesn't do a perfect job, there's no such thing as perfection, so creatures end up having all kinds of traits, like homosexual or pedophilic behaviors, or hair and nails that grow indefinitely, that do not benefit the animal in any way shape or form, that nonetheless are able to parasitize and pass themselves down from generation to generation, because of the good traits they're accompanied by. So just because you have a trait, doesn't mean it's beneficial, it may be largely neutral, or detriment. We can't look at traits in isolation, but they only become meaningful as part of a whole.
@@PyroblastDK In Caravaggio's note, trait is behavioral variation, although he compared them for your understanding to some keratin-producing cells. He is wrong in the inutility of constantly growing , though, as these are protective or hardened structures that are worn down with use. ALL cells and matrices in a body are CONSTANTLY replaced at variable rates,except many neurons, whose constituents,atomic/molecular ARE constantly in flux, replaced.
Hard to avoid any cognitive biases but wasn't the concept of homosexuality and pedophilia just a recent byproduct of medicalization/pathalogization of behaviour by insitutionalized psychiatry in natalist/expansionist cultures according to the Evolution of Human Homosexuality by Rob Kraig Kirkpatrick and Social Construction of Homosexuality by David E. Greenberg? Probably depends on a specific socioecological environment (pan troglodytes proactive political games over status, fertile females and offspring compared to pan paniscus (described as slightly more tolerant) society based on more or less egalitarian female/male coalitions and playful prosociality/sociosexuality for promotion of group stability regardless of age and gender as a byproduct of paedomorohism). Not sure about Trobrianders, Kaluli, Sambia people, Marind Anim, Piraha and all the extinct undocumented hunter-gatherer societies with different effects on epigenetic expression. Obedience to abstract laws and authorities in general population due to self-domestication syndrome according to the Goodness Paradox (Richard Wrangham) alongside the inter-male competition resulting in clandestine behaviour due to amatonormativity (cooperation maintenance hypothesis: not peer reviewed) is another factor in humans.
Lekking, to which Dr. Buss obliquely refers, is an interesting human phenomenon, as we are attracted to leks, including cities, sport events, clubs, and other competitions.
Can Evolutionary Psychology reveal the causal factors for the disturbing increase incivility , the mass adoption of obvious counter factual beliefs. Could it suggest a plausible avenue for a course correction.
4 роки тому+1
Not really clearly connected Evolution and Psychology, was more to do with Evolutionary theory. However, if we evolve (which we do) than Psychology has to evolve, thus Evolutionary Psychology.
If evolution was even remotely possible, which it is not! Where there are limit's there shouldn't be any. And anything impossible should be possible! For ex., What put limit's on how tall a human can grow, or a tree? why can't man, cohabitate with an animal, and create an offspring? Who gives an animal its sound, color, unique pattern coordination? Why are humans distinct from all things which have been created?.. oops! meant evolved? Why do some planets rotate one way, and other's another? Want to know why? Because there's an invisible unseen intelligence behind everything, and his name is Jehovah God. For those of you whom are adamant in your understanding. Your understanding(s) are no longer valid in this day, and time!
Modern men’s longevity certainly plays some role in women’s mate selection choices, and I’ll explain why. During the Stone Age when men had much shorter average lifespans, a woman with “good genes” would typically pair up with a number male partners during her reproductive years, due to the fact that each of her partners would die before she reached menopause. However, given the average lifespan of males in developed societies today, a man who impregnates a woman is ‘on the hook’ for financial support for 18 years. At the same time, a woman who ‘fails to collect’ child support from her child’s father is now considered a ‘liability’ to any new man who she dates or wishes to pair up with. This was not the case eons ago. Men’s lifespans were so short (compared to today) that there was no thought given toward what a child’s biological father owed his children, or how his failure to provide for them made this ex-mate ‘damaged goods’ to any new man. Nor did a woman’s new male lover have any reason to be concerned about a woman’s child being a drag or a drain in him. This man has to ‘score’, impregnate a female (regardless of whether she had ever had kids before), and hopefully ‘live long enough’ to spread even more of his seed over time (often with other women). Today, things are radically different. Now, even a woman who is ‘very physically attractive’ is likely to have difficulty finding a quality ‘long-term mate’ if she already has a child, particularly if the father of that child is not paying support. Many men will want to ‘have sex’ with this attractive woman (mother), but she will have a much harder time getting any ‘one man’ to commit to her, because she now has less value in the sexual marketplace than she had before she had dependent children. Again, this was not a problem for single mothers eons ago, back when humans lived in 40 to 100-person clans, and children were looked after by more than one woman in the tribe.
I don't understand why David Buss puts down behaviorism at the end of his talk and even compares it to phrenology. Evolutionary psychology IS behaviorism on a very large timescale. It's the very same thing; nothing more nothing less.
@@Stryper101 general consensus in psychology is that it's both environment and heredity, which hereditary influence is relatively measurable but not entirely efficiently.
Great to mention Darwin as being linked to the field of EP. Darwin carefully stayed as far away as possible from controversy as his ideas were if not heretical at least scandalous. Imagine him finding out in his own research that marrying his cousin is why he had a disabled child. Darwin knew that our present characteristics stemmed from ancient history through genes. . EP is science and has truth, contrary to what some even today say.
This began long before the couple billion ya of eukaryotic cells. It is marvelous, and initially biochemical-based response. Think molecular gradients.
This is an old post below that I thought should receive an answer. teleological bias when he asks students 'what would you do if you were a gene'. May misguide understanding, since it is the very existence of the body that obtain the genes that drive survival of genes.. it's not that the gene has a conscious motive to survive You're right and wrong. First this was a thought experiment for the students. Obviously genes themselves cannot think. But a genes successful continuation without motive still becomes a force of nature. The students have to think gene replication while a gene just does replication without thought. And if the gene messes up and the body dies then the gene dies with it. genes and bodies have a symbiotic relationship. Dawkins explains this much better then I can.
ACK! I've been trying to explain sexual dimorphism as why trans women should not be in female competitive sports as part of my view these days... but... I'm heckled because of anti social narrative of today's culture... Mental Slavery....*le sigh*
Oops, brain size reached its human maximum before 10k ya, and then shrunk rather steadily over 15%. This too is evolution, although we cannot detect which modular areas may have become less valuable, and therefore less subsidized in their copious appetite.
Im amazed that a university professor has to pretend that creationism is even a theory, much less that it is deserving of any kind of respect in an academic setting.
Why would a student "love " being taught something? Because they either thrive on being lied to, or simply don't know any better. If I had one day with ANY student of your's I could point them at the truth, while at the same time tearing down every pillar of your fairy fable you've been teaching their. Period. Try me.
Very good ones, mind. For example, intrasexual competition predicts that male-male conflict will more likely be violent and even deadly, whereas female-female conflict will be mostly based on gossip and backbiting. Prediction then would be male-on-male homicides will be much higher globally than female-on-female homicide. Is it true everywhere in the world? Yes, it is.
Pacing of this lecture was so off...time allocation to topics not well.paced so tjat toomuch detail was given until the latter part of the second half and so the last parts were just glanced at. It strike me as odd that a seasoned professor did not do a better job at pacing! This should NOT happen..it give very nhort shrift to odeas people are LESS familiar with...Darwinism shoud not need to receive such a large amount of time..knowledge of the basics of evolutionnshould be well lnown by this audience...frustrating!
You worked it out! Opportunistic = social strategy = mating opportunity and offspring survival strategy. You may have no idea that in self-reporting polling over 95% of humans retain deity confabulations, even though less that 85%,now in some polling having shrunk to 75% or so in the US population (it is lower in some other nations, higher in some others). Such high retention of self deception is useful for higher likelihood of attracting both long-term and short-term mates. Physical reality alone in a species able to confabulate and string together symbolic, inaccurate narrative structures for social reasons, is weak as a vector, compared to sharable delusionary ideas. In our species, delusion is not going to go away, so long as we evolutionarily depend upon symbolic communications rather than depending upon sensorimotor truth. Other styes of communication creating other sensory architectures in other species brains so far appear to be more practical and related to environmentally relevant information - less deceptive, due to being more reflective of sensory input. While some species can adaptively prioritize the alerting signals given by other individuals, they tend to use those signals to bring their molecular electromagnetic, sonic and touch senses to bear on that to which they have been alerted, rather than merely to propagate the verbal constructions. We do the latter because it tends to elicit social reward - thus perpetuating reward and consequently, the recursive hell of religion and other lies.
... You really should actually study it. If anyone actually puts on their hands on actual data... It's becomes, almost obvious, that it's real. All evolution is passing of traits over time.. If you can accept that viruses and pathogens grow. Resistant to medicine... You could, you know.. Accept reality.
@@travisfortenberry9565 see, that's where you EP cats get caught out. Evolutionary biology is very real, I don't think any of us will disagree there. But EP is rooted in political ideology and will never gain the true respect of science as a whole
A Theory is a hypothesis that has never been falsified AND having undergone strong critical tests - scientific tests which themselves are criticized by others seeking unwarranted or demonstrably false assertions or , importantly, errors in the process of accumulating evidence. Thus "just a" is so far in error as a diminutive, that it is an error so profound as to nullify the assertion of the troll typing it into this comment column.
He's a life saver for us students writing essays about Evolutionary Psychology.
Good succinct lecture. I especially liked the comparison.between the function ( physiology ) of the liver and the function of the brain. Evolutionary psychology is " updating" psychology in general. And it's about time too.
Darwin changed the world as no other
scientist. EP has taken his legacy.
Mind, at last, is being understood.
Glad to be alive to see this happening.
it is so true!! the average person is fearful of a description of why people do; thinking it will limit their "choice" they are afraid of not being the boss; but the ride is actually totally fun- one way or the other...as dennett says- i'm not thinking about free "will"- i'm thinking about "free won't" !!
9:50 ish “although it may be correct…” well I already love this man.
This guy is a genius.
This genius is a guy.
a is genius guy This
Unlike your mum, unless she is a genius then I take my comment back
@@Angelo-z2i 😂
We love it indeed!
thanks for the upload
It's important to remember that evolution doesn't necessarily give rise to the best traits, just any old trait as long as it survives. Mutations are random, sometimes a creature may evolve some largely bad or neutral traits along with some good ones, but they'll end up surviving anyway, because the good will outweigh the bad. And there's no such thing as good, neutral or bad traits in the absolute sense of those words, rather, there's better and worse traits for survival. This explains why some creatures have goofy, pathetic traits, mutations are largely Darwinian, random, not Lamarckian, it's natural selection which tends to weed out the bad traits, but it doesn't do a perfect job, there's no such thing as perfection, so creatures end up having all kinds of traits, like homosexual or pedophilic behaviors, or hair and nails that grow indefinitely, that do not benefit the animal in any way shape or form, that nonetheless are able to parasitize and pass themselves down from generation to generation, because of the good traits they're accompanied by. So just because you have a trait, doesn't mean it's beneficial, it may be largely neutral, or detriment. We can't look at traits in isolation, but they only become meaningful as part of a whole.
Can you elaborate on what you mean, when you use the word 'trait' in such context?
@@PyroblastDK In Caravaggio's note, trait is behavioral variation, although he compared them for your understanding to some keratin-producing cells.
He is wrong in the inutility of constantly growing , though, as these are protective or hardened structures that are worn down with use.
ALL cells and matrices in a body are CONSTANTLY replaced at variable rates,except many neurons, whose constituents,atomic/molecular ARE constantly in flux, replaced.
Hard to avoid any cognitive biases but wasn't the concept of homosexuality and pedophilia just a recent byproduct of medicalization/pathalogization of behaviour by insitutionalized psychiatry in natalist/expansionist cultures according to the Evolution of Human Homosexuality by Rob Kraig Kirkpatrick and Social Construction of Homosexuality by David E. Greenberg? Probably depends on a specific socioecological environment (pan troglodytes proactive political games over status, fertile females and offspring compared to pan paniscus (described as slightly more tolerant) society based on more or less egalitarian female/male coalitions and playful prosociality/sociosexuality for promotion of group stability regardless of age and gender as a byproduct of paedomorohism).
Not sure about Trobrianders, Kaluli, Sambia people, Marind Anim, Piraha and all the extinct undocumented hunter-gatherer societies with different effects on epigenetic expression. Obedience to abstract laws and authorities in general population due to self-domestication syndrome according to the Goodness Paradox (Richard Wrangham) alongside the inter-male competition resulting in clandestine behaviour due to amatonormativity (cooperation maintenance hypothesis: not peer reviewed) is another factor in humans.
Lekking, to which Dr. Buss obliquely refers, is an interesting human phenomenon, as we are attracted to leks, including cities, sport events, clubs, and other competitions.
Can Evolutionary Psychology reveal the causal factors for the disturbing increase incivility , the mass adoption of obvious counter factual beliefs. Could it suggest a plausible avenue for a course correction.
Not really clearly connected Evolution and Psychology, was more to do with Evolutionary theory. However, if we evolve (which we do) than Psychology has to evolve, thus Evolutionary Psychology.
If evolution was even remotely possible, which it is not! Where there are limit's there shouldn't be any. And anything impossible should be possible! For ex., What put limit's on how tall a human can grow, or a tree? why can't man, cohabitate with an animal, and create an offspring? Who gives an animal its sound, color, unique pattern coordination? Why are humans distinct from all things which have been created?.. oops! meant evolved? Why do some planets rotate one way, and other's another? Want to know why? Because there's an invisible unseen intelligence behind everything, and his name is Jehovah God. For those of you whom are adamant in your understanding. Your understanding(s) are no longer valid in this day, and time!
Oh the humanity
Modern men’s longevity certainly plays some role in women’s mate selection choices, and I’ll explain why. During the Stone Age when men had much shorter average lifespans, a woman with “good genes” would typically pair up with a number male partners during her reproductive years, due to the fact that each of her partners would die before she reached menopause. However, given the average lifespan of males in developed societies today, a man who impregnates a woman is ‘on the hook’ for financial support for 18 years. At the same time, a woman who ‘fails to collect’ child support from her child’s father is now considered a ‘liability’ to any new man who she dates or wishes to pair up with. This was not the case eons ago. Men’s lifespans were so short (compared to today) that there was no thought given toward what a child’s biological father owed his children, or how his failure to provide for them made this ex-mate ‘damaged goods’ to any new man. Nor did a woman’s new male lover have any reason to be concerned about a woman’s child being a drag or a drain in him. This man has to ‘score’, impregnate a female (regardless of whether she had ever had kids before), and hopefully ‘live long enough’ to spread even more of his seed over time (often with other women). Today, things are radically different. Now, even a woman who is ‘very physically attractive’ is likely to have difficulty finding a quality ‘long-term mate’ if she already has a child, particularly if the father of that child is not paying support. Many men will want to ‘have sex’ with this attractive woman (mother), but she will have a much harder time getting any ‘one man’ to commit to her, because she now has less value in the sexual marketplace than she had before she had dependent children. Again, this was not a problem for single mothers eons ago, back when humans lived in 40 to 100-person clans, and children were looked after by more than one woman in the tribe.
I don't understand why David Buss puts down behaviorism at the end of his talk and even compares it to phrenology. Evolutionary psychology IS behaviorism on a very large timescale. It's the very same thing; nothing more nothing less.
I believe because the notion is too abstract to study. There is too many things behaviorism ignores.
@@uberhaxonova very good point. I wish he’d elaborate on that
Behaviorism assumes everything is environmental, no heritability.
@@BenTomlinson1994 I see. Very good point. Many behaviorist are very near sighted that way. -But not me. Not this behaviorist.
@@Stryper101 general consensus in psychology is that it's both environment and heredity, which hereditary influence is relatively measurable but not entirely efficiently.
Great to mention Darwin as being linked to the field of EP. Darwin carefully stayed as far away as possible from controversy as his ideas were if not heretical at least scandalous. Imagine him finding out in his own research that marrying his cousin is why he had a disabled child. Darwin knew that our present characteristics stemmed from ancient history through genes.
. EP is science and has truth, contrary to what some even today say.
Every living has a defence system which is inbuilt
This began long before the couple billion ya of eukaryotic cells. It is marvelous, and initially biochemical-based response. Think molecular gradients.
He even said it was a thought experiment.
Matt Hill your point?
I'm having a hard time understanding your statement.
Tai Lopez sent me here
stfu
Tai is a clown haha
😂😂😂
He is a fraud.
This is an old post below that I thought should receive an answer.
teleological bias when he asks students 'what would you do if you were a gene'. May misguide understanding, since it is the very existence of the body that obtain the genes that drive survival of genes.. it's not that the gene has a conscious motive to survive
You're right and wrong. First this was a thought experiment for the students. Obviously genes themselves cannot think. But a genes successful continuation without motive still becomes a force of nature. The students have to think gene replication while a gene
just does replication without thought. And if the gene messes up and the body dies then
the gene dies with it. genes and bodies have a symbiotic relationship. Dawkins explains this much better then I can.
All metaphors are imperfect when applied to scientific concepts, but they are useful tools for teaching difficult concepts in introductory courses.
ACK! I've been trying to explain sexual dimorphism as why trans women should not be in female competitive sports as part of my view these days... but... I'm heckled because of anti social narrative of today's culture... Mental Slavery....*le sigh*
“although it might be correct, it’s not terribly useful for us” is another way of saying it’s simplistic and d u m b 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
Oops, brain size reached its human maximum before 10k ya, and then shrunk rather steadily over 15%. This too is evolution, although we cannot detect which modular areas may have become less valuable, and therefore less subsidized in their copious appetite.
Im amazed that a university professor has to pretend that creationism is even a theory, much less that it is deserving of any kind of respect in an academic setting.
He wants to survive in Texas!!
@@Grandpa_Boxer Its an adaptation
7:12 "Is this thing on?"
Good lord (pun intended) - learn to move off that podium, this isn't a lecture about Evolutionary Psychology... it's death by PowerPoint.
Infinite turtles
he sounds sorta like james woods
Daniel Mitchell
It's a heuristic device. Look up 'Gene-centered view of evolution'
a science is not a heuristic- it is the opposite a heuristic, by the way the term coined by kahneman and tversky- evo devo-ists !!
According to my analysis world is made by aliens
Interesting that God is enclosed in the image of a brain. It means God is a concept of the mind.
Is this a reference to the video? Because I didn't get that.
Also, your symbolic teleology gland might be overdeveloped.
Blue eyes =. Sexually selected for....
Why would a student "love " being taught something? Because they either thrive on being lied to, or simply don't know any better.
If I had one day with ANY student of your's I could point them at the truth, while at the same time tearing down every pillar of your fairy fable you've been teaching their. Period. Try me.
Evolution is science. Evolutionary psychology as it exists is mostly a bunch of hypotheses.
Much of science consists of a "bunch of hypotheses."
Very good ones, mind. For example, intrasexual competition predicts that male-male conflict will more likely be violent and even deadly, whereas female-female conflict will be mostly based on gossip and backbiting. Prediction then would be male-on-male homicides will be much higher globally than female-on-female homicide. Is it true everywhere in the world? Yes, it is.
All psychology is hypotheses, no matter what interpretative model you choose. But EP has most powerful and most elegant explanatory power.
Testable hypothesis.
What a useless statement.
14
Pacing of this lecture was so off...time allocation to topics not well.paced so tjat toomuch detail was given until the latter part of the second half and so the last parts were just glanced at. It strike me as odd that a seasoned professor did not do a better job at pacing! This should NOT happen..it give very nhort shrift to odeas people are LESS familiar with...Darwinism shoud not need to receive such a large amount of time..knowledge of the basics of evolutionnshould be well lnown by this audience...frustrating!
11:06 ... only stupid opportunistic can hold that two at the same time
You worked it out! Opportunistic = social strategy = mating opportunity and offspring survival strategy.
You may have no idea that in self-reporting polling over 95% of humans retain deity confabulations, even though less that 85%,now in some polling having shrunk to 75% or so in the US population (it is lower in some other nations, higher in some others).
Such high retention of self deception is useful for higher likelihood of attracting both long-term and short-term mates.
Physical reality alone in a species able to confabulate and string together symbolic, inaccurate narrative structures for social reasons, is weak as a vector, compared to sharable delusionary ideas.
In our species, delusion is not going to go away, so long as we evolutionarily depend upon symbolic communications rather than depending upon sensorimotor truth.
Other styes of communication creating other sensory architectures in other species brains so far appear to be more practical and related to environmentally relevant information - less deceptive, due to being more reflective of sensory input.
While some species can adaptively prioritize the alerting signals given by other individuals, they tend to use those signals to bring their molecular electromagnetic, sonic and touch senses to bear on that to which they have been alerted, rather than merely to propagate the verbal constructions.
We do the latter because it tends to elicit social reward - thus perpetuating reward and consequently, the recursive hell of religion and other lies.
it's just a theory
evolution?
... You really should actually study it. If anyone actually puts on their hands on actual data... It's becomes, almost obvious, that it's real.
All evolution is passing of traits over time..
If you can accept that viruses and pathogens grow. Resistant to medicine... You could, you know.. Accept reality.
@@travisfortenberry9565 see, that's where you EP cats get caught out. Evolutionary biology is very real, I don't think any of us will disagree there. But EP is rooted in political ideology and will never gain the true respect of science as a whole
A Theory is a hypothesis that has never been falsified AND having undergone strong critical tests - scientific tests which themselves are criticized by others seeking unwarranted or demonstrably false assertions or , importantly, errors in the process of accumulating evidence.
Thus "just a" is so far in error as a diminutive, that it is an error so profound as to nullify the assertion of the troll typing it into this comment column.
that's fat shaming!
I'll tell you the truth. It is Jehovah God who makes everything possible!