[lit-ideas] Re: Fooling Trivers
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:15:38 +0000 (GMT)
>"He has also contributed by explaining self-deception as an adaptive
evolutionary strategy (first described in 1976).">
This bald statement is unsatisfactory, as Trivers' aim is not to tell a
"just-so-story" about the adaptiveness of "self-deception" but to examine it in
terms of both its adaptiveness and non-adaptiveness. (Read the book.)
The pressing issue with "self-deception", from a Darwinian POV, is that it
belongs with things like "altruism": where both "altruism" and "self-deception"
would seem on the face of it non-adaptive in Darwinian terms, and so there is a
problem in trying to explain them in Darwinian terms. In the case of "altruism"
Darwinians have made tremendous advance in explaining apparent "altruism" in
Darwinian terms [as Dawkins sets out well in "The Selfish Gene"], but with
"self-deception" Trivers is entering relatively uncharted waters.
In "Deceit", Triver's theme is to explain how "self-deception" could become a
prevalent aspect of human psychology - which explanation must be in terms of it
being to some extent adaptive; but also Trivers seeks to bring out how it is
maladaptive. There is no contradiction in this: what may be "adaptive" for
certain purposes may be "maladaptive" for others.
Also against any one-sided emphasis on "adaptiveness":- there is the underlying
question of evolution favouring a kind of 'equilibrium' between tendencies to
"self-deception" and tendencies that go against "self-deception". We might
expect to see striking assymetry in when "self-deception" is favoured: we might
expect "self-deception" is to be selected against where it works against
self-interest and to be selected for when it works for self-interest.
The myriad challenges of life can render maladaptive what would often be
adaptive: for example, a courteous manner with persons in authority might be
part of an adaptive skill-set for humans in many situations. But, as Trivers
analyses certain aeroplane disasters, he suggests that a deferential manner in
an emergency - where the person in authority is on a course for disaster* - may
itself be a manner that paves the way to disaster. It appears there have been
many preventable air disasters that were not averted because of a deferential
or polite attitude of the sort Walter might generally applaud (this explains
why there are fewer accidents pro rata when a subordinate pilot is flying than
when the head pilot is flying - because the head pilot will not hesitate to
intervene to correct the subordinate's mistake in a way the subordinate may
hesitate to challenge the head pilot [Trivers refers to some tragic recorded
evidence of a subordinate, who went to
his death with the head pilot and the rest of the plane, because he did not
sufficiently challenge the head pilot on a lethal safety issue before
take-off]).
So we should never raise the issue of "adaptive" without looking also at the
"maladaptive" side of the coin; whether a trait is "adaptive" or "maladaptive"
is always relative to the situation in which it is displayed, and evolutionary
selection pressures may select for "self-deception" to a degree [relative to
certain situations] while also selecting against "self-deception" to a degree
[relative to other situations]. Such is the complexity of life.
It bowdlerises the Darwinian approach to offer it as if it is merely a
one-sided "just so story" about the "adaptiveness" of everything. If this is
all Darwinism had to offer it would not only be relatively uninteresting an
approach but easily falsified - for it is easy to find "maladaptive" traits
that have nevertheless endured. What a Darwinian approach offers is the
possibility of a detailed explanation of the existence of traits in terms of
both their relative "adaptiveness" and "maladaptiveness". That proves exciting.
Dnl
Ldn
On Saturday, 15 March 2014, 15:02, "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
From the Wikipedia page on Trivers:
"He has also contributed by explaining self-deception as an adaptive
evolutionary strategy (first described in 1976)."
But I don't think the reference is given. I should try and explore McEvoy's
link, which was the amazon.com page, with a possibility to 'read inside'.
Or not!
Cheers,
Speranza
References
Trivers, R. L. 1976.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Method in philosophical psychology: from the banal to
the bizarre.
---- on self-deception and evolutionary strategies. Or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
