Do You Have Something to Write With?

From my perspective, the only qualification I’d make to your comments is that lemons can be made into lemonade.  A world-famous evolutionary biologist once told me that most of this scholar’s output came from interpolating Wynne-Edwards’ species-level ideas into individual-level formulations.
Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943

Every time I read David Barash I recoil in horror. He is an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Washington but what he posts in the Chronicle as we say in the trade is cat, rat, dog, i.e.,simple.  Now either evolutionary psychology is still in the stone age or publish something in the Chronicle that is at the FOREFRONT of the discipline. I like reading these articles but Dr. Barash publishes articles that are either derived from (faulty) logic or behind the times. Please, you are better than what you are writing.  Evolutionary psychology is exploring a host of new and exciting topics e.g. moral psychology, epigenetics (the inheritance of acquired characteristics), and how much of our current human behavior can be traced to our prehuman ancestors, etc. When I see your name at the top of an article in the Chronicle, I glance through it knowing in advance that it will hold little interest. This shouldn’t be. Dr. Barash you have a lot of information at your disposal.
Show us, tell us, share what you know. Loren Wingblade

The illusion of fitness comes when an environment is stable for a long time, so organisms accumulate huge repertoires of neither good nor harmful traits—neutral ones—-and BY A PROCESS of editing OUT traits that harm survival till reproduction, that harm the gene handling processes, that harm the mating-finding repro processes—animal systems at the absolute physics optima of performance, appear.  This is optimizing by editing out, not optimizing as humans try to think and do it.  It does wonders in an inverse way—-THAT is why it takes billions of years at times, though inheritance of behaviors over short spans of weeks has been demonstrated in the lab (Lamarck lives).   IT is a compiler of compiler of compiler systems—a nested recursive set of Chinese box compilers—behavior to events to software to firmware to hardware.  It even managed to embed a COMPLETE NATURAL SELECTION SYSTEM WITHIN ANIMALS—their secondary immune systems of anti-body generators.  IT IS, afterall, the MOST CREATIVE PROCESS IN THE UNIVERSE from our human point of view (it invented us).

I’m just a layperson but it seems to me that the reductionist argument breaks down when you go from organisms to genes. I’ve never been persuaded by Dawkins et al that the gene is a meaningful level of analysis of natural selection when talking about the overwhelming majority of cases that most laypeople are interested in for the simple reason that the selective force acts on the entire individual, not on one gene at a time. The entire individual, a holistic package of thousands of genes bundled together as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for selection, either does or does not leave behind viable progeny. Individual gene alleles can make the entire organism more or less fit for survival/reproduction, but the selection occurs on the entire creature, not that one gene.  I’m still very much open to hearing a good explanation, accessible to laypeople, of why some biologists have bought into the Selfish Gene view. Is this still a debate in evo bio circles, or is there consensus now?

Species are the consequence, not the goal, of natural selection.

I would have liked Prof. Barash to expand his explanation to include the role of contingency in fitness.My great-great-great-great grandfather was fit, because he left descendents, i.e., me.  He was more fit than 35,000 of his comrades at Waterloo, not because he was smarter, stronger, braver or anything else, but simply because he did not get shot.

I would term this a statement of the obvious.  Random phenomena (and non-random interference) are endemic to life as we know it, meaning the so-called fittest may well be displaced in favor of something less fit at any given point in time.  On the other hand, as can easily be demonstrated using discrete event simulation, random phenomena will eventually yield to an underlying trend if allowed to play out long enough (eons in the case of evolution).  The trouble is we can do little more than speculate on what trends are present in nature as we observe it since we do not have the luxury of observation over eons (we observe artifacts from across eons).  The artifacts suggest earth once supported much larger life forms than we see now, so is there a trend towards smaller (perhaps trending towards something like viruses)?   Does increasing intelligence represent a trend, or is intelligence a random occurrence that will fall by the wayside in favor of whatever underlying trend inexorably exerts itself?  Cosmology is rife with speculation regarding trends governing stellar phenomena, under-girded by theory based on observation.  The only thing that is certain is that nature is far more complex than many seem willing to admit.

“Not for the Good of the Species”  And of what conception of the “good” do you and others speak when the term is used?

“Good”  [from Onelook.com]:
Adjective
–of a high quality or standard
–able to do something well
–able to deal with someone or something well, or able to use something well
–having the necessary qualities
–reasonable or sensible
–appropriate and likely to produce the results or conditions you want
–convenient
–honest and morally correct
–willing to obey and behave in a socially correct way
–willing to obey all the rules of a particular religion or organization
–kind, generous, and willing to help
–giving you a happy or pleasant feeling
–attractive
–feeling healthy
–feeling happy
–making you healthy or happy
–giving benefits to something
–fairly large in amount, size, range, etc.
–not damaged or spoiled in any way and still able to be used or eaten
–able to be legally used or officially accepted
–still able to be used for a particular period of time or a particular distance
–able to be used because of being real and not false
–used for saying that you are pleased with someone, or are pleased about something
–used when talking about what has been decided or agreed
–having a high and respected position in society
–expensive, or used by people with a high position in society
–reliable and likely to earn a lot of money for you
–giving you a lot of value for something you are buying or selling
–thorough and complete
–funny or interesting
–a ball that is good in a game such as tennis lands inside the area in which the game is played
–more than a particular distance, amount, age, etc.
–if there is a good chance of something happening, it is likely to happen

Noun
–advantage, or benefit
–morally correct behavior
–people who behave in a morally correct way
–the pleasant part or aspects of something

Adverb
–a way of saying “well” that many people think is not correct

Most systems when left to themselves rapidly proceed to the most disordered state, Boltzmann tells us [and solely for brevity's sake I shall not distinguish among universe, system, and surroundings]. This seems particularly apparent when considering the human species over history. Is this what is meant by “not for the good of the species”?

I would hope and assume that anyone sophisticated enough to respond to this blog would understand that the use of language such as “trying” or “selfish” is simply short-hand for saying the much more cumbersome “behaving in such a manner that in the past has resulted in greater success in projecting copies of his or her genes into the future, and therefore results in activities that appear to be teleological … but are not.”

Evidently!

In spite of your professed views, you are still attributing a teleological goal for evolution.  You are denying agency in terms of evolution to individual organisms  but then you are tansferring that agency to genes.  Your choice of word is rife with that implication.   

How does for instance a human gene or a bee gene “achieve projecting itself into the future”?  Please elaborate.  I would be amazed if your argument wouldn’t involve cultural social and political traits and would deny the existence of any sort of empathy, not only in  human beings but in other organisms.  Is empathy genetic?  Since no one has found the “selfish” gene, nor the “altruistic” gene, we might as well theorize about the existence of an empathy gene… (all of those somehow invisible in the human genome).

(I would hypothesize that altruism and empathy are linked to bonding hormones and that some of us have more  than others?  Obviously people “believing” (I use that word intentionally) in altruistic genes as opposed to “believing” in selfish genes might be producing more bonding hormones than others –or they might have been brought up that way! 

 Is there such thing as a “humble” gene that would remind scientists dealing with social issues (because ultimately that’s what evolutionary psychology does) that they too are social animals?

As far as assumptions, let us recall that as explanatory, reductionistic, and circular a device as it happens to be, the positing of a “selfish gene” is no less teleological, attempting a definitive answer to address the cause of an unknown phenomenon while ascribing intention to a chemical entity.  Those who call themselves scientists would do well to examine their philosophical assumptions, something many scientists clearly have little background doing.

There’s something satisfying to me about writing in my Moleskine with pencil. I think it’s good to spend time thinking and connecting my thoughts away from the computer, and I find that a hell of a lot easier and more productive to do in a notebook that I can flip through, highlight, draw in, bookmark, stick post-its in and then take them out or move them around. I like the tactile nature of it, and I like being able to see how my thinking has evolved. But I always scan my pages every month and keep them in Evernote.

I am old school. I love all those pen and paper gadgets, but I don’t carry a bag, or a purse, just my jean pockets most of the time. So, when I need to take notes, I use whatever is at hand. Yesterday, for instance, I wrote some ideas for a paper I am working on, on the the back of my hotel confirmation sheet (I was in my way to Chicago). Before that, in another flight coming back from New Orleans, I wrote my notes on the white margins of the boarding pass stud. When I travel abroad, and I travel abroad frequently, taking yet another item in my bags is a luxury, not matter how small it could be, so, in many cases, abroad, I write on the back of the store receipts I always keep for tax purposes; this notes are the ones I keep better track of, and I keep them for at least 5 years. :-)

For open-ended writing (reflection, creative writing, exercises), you can’t beat a 3×5 Field Notes notebook, with graph paper.

Work-wise, any new information of importance will become digital in my workflow, but yes, the trusty Hipster PDA is the front end in any situations where having the laptop open would be impossible or would breach etiquette. When the laptop is open, OmniFocus or NValt substitute for paper.

I’m usually in a dress shirt, so the Hipster PDA and the Field Notes notebook (and fountain pen) all fit neatly into the shirt pocket.

I have two 3×5 notebooks I carry–one is a Moleskine, for work, the other is a black “Markings” lined journal, with a ribbon so that I can find my place–it’s my “Idea Book” for on the go. Then usually a gel pen in a shirt pocket.

Quick capture is essential. When driving, I use my iPhone and take a voice memo, which I transfer to one of my other buckets (thank you, David Allen!) when I get a chance.

The challenge is to remember to check your buckets and transform notes into useful thoughts and actions.

Honestly, I’m clearly in the tech generation, either that or I’ve given up losing all the pieces of paper, notebooks, pens, pencils, etc. Really, I just lose things a lot. I’ve already lost a copy of one of my lab manuals this year and I teach the class. I do have a notebook in my bag for writing with a pen tied to it, but it’s not always on me, or even often on me. I’m an Evernote on my smartphone person. Type it or record it or snap a picture of it, and then it’s there.  

It has saved the world with plethora of technolgy and scarce forests for paper use ro record. Thanls for the sustainability apporach in todays information driven world with facebook and blogs.– http://ca.linkedin.com/in/aburishi