I love evolution, and detest peoples’ misuse of the term and concept.
We humans hate that evolution is a remainder process. We can’t stand the idea that we lack control. Even evolutionists are burdened with the lexicon of evolution as an active directed ‘force’.
Species do not ‘evolve to…xyz’. They simply manage to reproduce, and potentially, the offspring survive to breeding age. They are the ones that don’t die due to active forces like weather.
It’s just we can’t find a shorthand for this. Evolution is not a process - that shorthand includes a hint of direction, which subverts our thinking and helps us believe there is a ‘greater force’ at work.
We have gained a large amount of control over our environment and comfort. We have profound ways to aid in health and comfort of those in need. Our excess time has allowed for the comfort of the less fortunate and all culture, art, and science. There is something that has kept you personally here in society, you have had the option to go live in the jungle all along.
Not all people welcome pollution, maybe it is just a learning period for our species, or a lesson for the next if there is one.
I can sorta get behind this. I don’t know how much of this is demonstrably “evolved” into us, but I can definitely see human beings preferring linear teleologies to random outcomes. Even one of the most iconic symbols of evolution, The March of Progress, is often misinterpreted (or misleading, depending on how you understand the image) to fit this cognitive bias. I remember first learning about the statistical nature of quantum mechanics and being feeling very confused by it.
Still, I’m somewhat skeptical about “cognitive style” as distinct from upbringing. It strikes me as being poorly delineated from what I’ve read. I have yet to see the full paper.
I think this is easily overstated; the many complex structures and behaviors you see in living things aren’t all incidental. They originate in an undirected fashion, but nevertheless are often selected or only persist because they do xyz. However you choose to phrase it, xyz is part of the reason they exist.
I like the notion of teleonomy, recognizing things may not have the same sort of purpose we give our actions or tools but still may have a sort of evolutionary function. More, I agree with Mayr that without trying to consider this kind of why, our understanding of an organism is left very incomplete.
I maybe should mention that I do recognize it’s common to take this too far, though. Many traits can also be secondary or superfluous, and it can be tempting to simply assume they aren’t without evidence, just because we prefer explanations that give a sense of purpose. Still, that doesn’t mean apparent purposefulness is never real and important.
Oh, it’s not semantics I’m questioning. I was under the idea that it was small random mutations that gives rise to variation.
Are you saying that these mutations are directed?
Just from the specific language used (Intuitive vs Analytic) I’m guessing they’re using either the Jung Personality Inventory, or they’re using something based on Jung’s theory of cognition. Which measures four “cognitive functions” (Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, Intuition) each on a spectrum between Introverted and Extroverted.
In any case, I personally find Jungian inventories to be more closely related to astrological charts than actual science. And the characteristics for either end of the spectra involved tend to include a bunch of elements everyone favors, so it doesn’t really make sense to peg someone as favoring one end of the spectrum or the other.
I’ve taken the Jungian Personality Inventory numerous times, and have never gotten the same result twice.
We are capable of moral reasoning. We have the ability to cause harm, pain and suffering to everything on the planet. But because we have comparatively freakish, pulsating brains, we’re able to recognize the power we hold, and sometimes choose not to do the easiest thing that causes ourselves and lesser beings to suffer.
That’s why we’re different from most other species. We have the ability to recognize many options, see the one that is easiest for us, but still be able to choose to do the thing that causes the least suffering (as far as we can tell).
As I understand it, that is the underpinning of humanistic philosophy, and it’s what I choose to ascribe to sometimes. I like to think of myself as a humanist, but there’s a lot of implications in that philosophy I don’t adhere to, simply because it’s massively easier to take an easier option. I personally find it a moral or ethical failing on my part sometimes, but I at least try to remain a humanist as long as I’m dealing with other humans. But still fail a lot. I have a problem with my temper and it gets the better of me sometimes, but I do my level best to reconcile when I know I’ve done something to hurt someone.
Wasn’t someone saying shit’s complex a few hours ago? Here is some information to add to the discussion from Daniel Dennett, who knows what he is talking about:
