http://popsych.org/predictably-lacking/ The Internet's Best Evolutionary Psycholo-guy Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:05:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://popsych.org/predictably-lacking/#comment-311 Jesse Marczyk Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:39:45 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=432#comment-311 That sounds a lot like group selection, and <a href="http://popsych.org/?p=168" rel="nofollow">group selection doesn't work</a>. That sounds a lot like group selection, and group selection doesn’t work.

]]> http://popsych.org/predictably-lacking/#comment-310 Robert Zimmerman Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:11:39 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=432#comment-310 I don't think you are correct in assuming that "condemnation" is a necessary evolutionary basis for "conscience". From an evolutionary standpoint, the purely selfish organism you speak of which both cheats and feels good about cheating may have a selection advantage when it is in the minority, but this same selection advantage would theoretically drive it to dominate the population at which point it would no longer hold an advantage. A population mostly comprised of cheaters would in fact probably be detrimental to the overall genetic viability of the population. Because of this, an internal mechanism like "conscience" to modulate the advantage cheating would give to the individual, can exist independently of an external mechanism like "condemnation". We see this in microbiology with cheating bacteria that are metabolically selected for because they are defective in some secreted protein that is for the common good of the population, and simply gain advantage bestowed by their neighbors without contributing themselves. However, the cheaters never overwhelm the population because the honest bacteria are necessary to the very maintenance of the community. I don’t think you are correct in assuming that “condemnation” is a necessary evolutionary basis for “conscience”. From an evolutionary standpoint, the purely selfish organism you speak of which both cheats and feels good about cheating may have a selection advantage when it is in the minority, but this same selection advantage would theoretically drive it to dominate the population at which point it would no longer hold an advantage. A population mostly comprised of cheaters would in fact probably be detrimental to the overall genetic viability of the population. Because of this, an internal mechanism like “conscience” to modulate the advantage cheating would give to the individual, can exist independently of an external mechanism like “condemnation”. We see this in microbiology with cheating bacteria that are metabolically selected for because they are defective in some secreted protein that is for the common good of the population, and simply gain advantage bestowed by their neighbors without contributing themselves. However, the cheaters never overwhelm the population because the honest bacteria are necessary to the very maintenance of the community.

]]> http://popsych.org/predictably-lacking/#comment-309 Dylan Evans Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:01:37 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=432#comment-309 Excellent review. Harsh though it may sound, this book does indeed fail to live up to the standard set by Dan Ariely's previous two books. One gets the impression that it has been churned out to satisfy his publisher. I've heard of "second album syndrome" - this seems to be a case of third book syndrome. Excellent review. Harsh though it may sound, this book does indeed fail to live up to the standard set by Dan Ariely’s previous two books. One gets the impression that it has been churned out to satisfy his publisher. I’ve heard of “second album syndrome” – this seems to be a case of third book syndrome.

]]>