Stone Age Minds: A conversation with evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

[@PeckiePeck]

Fifteen years ago I was an undergrad at UCSB and had heard the pioneers of evolutionary psychology taught at my school. So I look up Leda Cosmides and visit her office one day to just see who this person is. She's working at her computer and sees me in her doorway and I nervously say I'd heard about evo psych and wondered if she had book recommendations for someone new to the subject. She hands me a copy of Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene and Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works off her bookshelf and says she doesn't need them back. I never interacted with her again, but those two books are still two of the most influential to my worldview that I've ever read. She gave me a great gift, totally free, and I was a stranger.

[@nocthepanafricanistcapital5467]

One of the most valuable videos one could watch.

[@mikefixac]

12 years later, this wisdom will stand the test of time. Evolutionary psychology vs blank slate. So exciting to view the world through this lens.

[@niriop]

5:24 Hand touch = Shut up dear I'm psychologising

[@amysaysamy]

that part made me lol

[@mevman44]

This was impressive. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby are spectacular!

[@DanBullard]

I'm a big fan, I love hearing it straight from the source. Watching this video did not disappoint, you guys are great!

[@rockandrock44]

@TombaFanatic Very true. It also explains people's skepticism and lack of understanding of evolutionary biology. Bottom up emergence is always harder to comprehend than an imposed top-down order.

[@Roleren]

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die" Max Planc So true!

[@daveyg07]

This is one of the most important videos Reason has done so far... good work

[@Malthus0]

It is great that people are developing Hayek's thesis from the 70s & 80s.

[@dmonarredmonarre3076]

Leda is amazing. John is very lucky. That is a complete woman there. Intelligent, pragmatic, calculating, and even-tempered. I would like to have my relationship operate like this couple! Good on ya. Both legends!

[@neonshoji]

It's interesting that Dr. Cosmides said, "we're not designed for...". With this talk of matrix-like program systems in our head determining our perception of the world, she just demonstrated a great example of that. I assume that she is atheist/agnostic yet describes man's fit in the modern world as a design flaw. It's amazing what we say so frivolously.

[@SylviabombsmithUjhy75bd34]

Tooby is a fucking legend. so is david buss and the dawk

[@dogbishop]

Some of this hints at Thomas Sowell's Stage 1 versus Stage 2 thinking. Example Stage 1 is instituting rent control so that people in cities can keep their apartments despite increasing demand, Stage 2 is realizing that rent control causes demand to skyrocket and now landlords don't have to upkeep buildings b/c demand is so high, Stage 3 is a housing shortage b/c it is not worth building where there is rent control. So where does "evolutionary psychology" end and economics begin? Good video!

[@Ultrabrutalni]

Can anyone here, please, type in what is mrs. Leda Cosmides saying between 3:40 and 3:49? Thank you!

[@mrzold]

Ultrabrutalni "... we're trying to understand, what are the reliably developing species-typical programs ... that constitute human nature?"

[@aahansapra9572]

Stellar interview!! Would've been better without the background music

[@stick1to2the3issue]

wow - i really enjoyed this thanks Reason.

[@whatupcuzzzz]

@OscarBaldwin Our ancestors nursed, had two sexes, hunted, gathered, chose mates, used tools, had color vision, bled when wounded, were predated upon, were subject to viral infections, were incapacitated from injuries, had deleterious recessives and so were subject to inbreeding depression if they mated with siblings, fought with each other, lived in a biotic environment with felids, snakes, and plant toxins, etc.

[@krisztap]

"Perception is externally driven hallucination."

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

To put it another way, humans are continually lying to themselves.

[@smtesta]

Why hallucination rather than representation?

[@darwinkilledgod]

@@smtesta They're experienced as hallucination. Color doesn't exist. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound. etc.

[@Liberty4Ever]

Great video. Very thought provoking. I think evolutionary psychology is a field that is fertile ground. Much more research is needed. We could learn very valuable things about ourselves, if we overcame our bias against thinking that complex human behavior could be significantly influenced by evolution, which is beyond our control.

[@TylerNull]

@TombaFanatic That sounds intuitively pleasing, which is why the notion spread and holds, much like Freud's defunct notions on human psychology still do. However, Darwin's notion requires a near-infinite number of infinitesimal changes to what we now know is the genetic code. This is the exact opposite of what is revealed in the fossil record. Instead, what the record shows is that species suddenly appear, live unchanged for tens of millions of years or so, and then suddenly vanish.

[@kev3d]

@tsummerlee It is not that humans, ancient or modern, cannot or do no "understand", it is that humans are programmed, by evolution to respond to a certain type of lifestyle, which is hunting, gathering and evidently, trading. People 10,000 years ago might have been able to understand technology or the inner workings of the stock market if trained, but 400,000 years of human evolution have produced hunters and gatherers and this explains a lot about why we act the way we do.

[@Str0ngbow]

@TylerNull Oh, and before you start calling biased info: these examples were acquired from about.com & wikipedia. If you want to research those sources for info on evolution, go ahead. They are generally neutral sources for information and not based on pro-evolutionist or pro-AI standpoints.

[@Str0ngbow]

@TylerNull "As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving," - cont.

[@vclxrr]

@ejohnwright For millenia, the thinking has been that A) the human mind is separate from the physical world, and B) that the conscious mind is at all times fully intertwined with the concept of free will. We are now starting to gather and acknowledge evidence that neither of these positions are true.

[@shampoovta]

These are my kind of thinkers. Empiric thought! So rare and beautiful. *sob* :)

[@tsummerlee]

@kev3d Thank you for this well reasoned response. Which collective behaviours are they trying to isolate, and is there such a thing?

[@MegaKev29]

Thank you so much, that is very kind of you! I will definetly look into that! Much appreaciated. I am sorry, I misunderstood her behaviour and I should not have used the word bossy. I didn't mean to insult anyone, put point taken. Thanl you for your help!

[@TylerNull]

@starbugster The issue is not the existence or observations of similar things, but of the lack of scientific rigor used by Darwinists in drawing their conclusions. Even within anyone's lifetime, there are radical changes in the development of species, between dog breeds, from the age of fertility in humans within cultures, to cross-species breeding; however, there is nothing there to suggest Natural Selection at work, and lots there to evidence entirely unrelated processes.

[@S2Cents]

As a lefty, I can attest to that. A male lefty that likes EP. EP is a responded to by feminists less like EP is an authentic field of scientific research and more like it's a covert right-wing ideology masked as science that's being used to oppress women/feminists/liberals. Which I must say leaves me wondering about the left-of-center in general when it claims to be so enlightened and pro-science and I witness reactions like this. And btw, taking a critical look a feminism is depressing.

[@dogbishop]

@tsummerlee There are still hunter gatherer societies today in South America, Australia, and Africa, at least well into the 20th century, I wonder if there are studies relating how well these cultures understand technology or modern social structure. Did any of these people grow up and go to college or become CEO of a company? Or does growing up in a certain social structure preclude sucess in another social structure?

[@Str0ngbow]

@TylerNull "and thus be /naturally selected/. From the strong principles of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form." - Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", p. 5, although it may be better worded and understood by the previous responder.

[@neonshoji]

@zz773 Casual mentions of design infers a designer. We, as well as all species, are product of trial and error, not a calculated process. To suggests that "we weren't designed" for our current engagement of life and society discounts the fact that we are living longer than ever and growing exponentially in population. If evolution is the process of design, then we are thriving by that design. That definition renders everything a design instead of a process.

[@darkwhitedirewolf]

I loved this interview, new ways to explain the long term evil of socialism to others who don't yet get it "government does not know you, and really does not care about you." Also slaps the false assumption that capitalists are not concerned for fellow people.

[@zz773]

@El3ctricPenguin Could you please repeat that using a complete sentence?

[@TombaFanatic]

@TylerNull First, I'll point out I am not the most educated in this field, but I'll do my best to explain it from my understanding. While I have no explanation for why a species would "suddenly appear," it does make sense that for the most part, the species would not change much over millions of years if it is a successful species. Of course, there's always a time where the environment changes and their success runs out. But very interesting, I'll look into that idea you've stated.

[@Jklmnopjkl]

I work at Starbucks and I would LOVE to give free drinks to my customers, however I would be fired! :)

[@stealthswimmer]

@jayspoonia not necessarily. Socialism just means common ownership of the means of production. State socialism involves the government owning that, but voluntary socialism is where individuals form communities in which they do so. Some families also treat their finances as if they're all one checkbook. Personally, I'm not into that, but it *can* "work"...but private ownership tends to be more efficient because everyone has a personal stake in maintaining things.

[@nickdaring]

@neonshoji Design through natural selection is still a design. Modern life has descended upon us so quickly that our physical designs have not had enough time to adjust and adapt to a new design through the slow means of natural selection just yet. No god talk to be found there.

[@Virtueman1]

They don´t seem to take the "tabula rasa" approach.

[@vclxrr]

@nicademus1974 In science, almost everything is called a theory - even when it is proven to be true within a particular context (such as physical laws). The reason for this is that, really, science tells us about what "consistently appears to be", rather than "what is". Science is about observing patterns and the patterns that cause those patterns, ad infinitum. Even when physicists talk about "what is" they really mean "what appears to be". Philosophy is more akin to the study of "what is".

[@flyingturtle22]

@vclxrr dennett comes to mind, his speech about free will is amazing. oh and daniel gilbert's book kinda breaks down the brain. loved it too. personally I think its because this era we approach these questions more scientifically than philosophically so we use completely different methods and assumptions. but I totally agree with you.

[@kev3d]

@tsummerlee I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths any more than I have, but my suspicion is that they are trying to find the traits that all cultures share and look for parallel behavior in other primates or evidence of such behavior in ancient dwellings. Trade, for example, seems to be unique to homo sapiens sapiens as tools found are often made with foreign materials, whereas neanderthal (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) tools are always made with local materials. Weird no?

[@zz773]

@neonshoji What do you mean by "if" evolution is the process? Of course it is the process that designed us. Evolution is a fact. The phrase "we weren't designed" was in the context of our ability to understand economics---not our ability for our population to grow.

[@wblakesx]

Branch of scientology?

[@Str0ngbow]

@TylerNull You feel the theory is gobbledygook because you refuse to research it. Both macro-evolution & micro-evolution has been observed. Astronomical evolution has also been observed, but that's up to you to decide whether that counts. Astronomers certainly think it does. Examples of both macro & micro are beetles in Australia that in mainland have wings, while their counterparts on the coast or islands do not to avoid being blown away, though at one point they all had wings. con't-

[@Str0ngbow]

@ejohnwright I agree. I feel like the term "evolutionary psychology" is just a fancy term for "cultural anthropology". As a student of religion and anthropology I'm not seeing any difference from their "shocking" findings and what I had learned in college.

[@jetrpg22]

LOVED IT

[@vclxrr]

@ejohnwright To a great extent we owe many of our new-found insights to a willingness & ability to apply physics to the study of biology, & then in turn to apply this deeper understanding of biology to the study of cognative processes. There are clear indications that the same molecular processes that code for the structures of the brain simultaneously code for certain behavioral tendencies. It follows that this selective genetic coding would have a significant basis in the evolutionary process.

[@Str0ngbow]

@TylerNull If you feel that a bear falling into water and turning into a whale in any way shape or form can represent evolution as an analogy you have no concept of the theory of evolution and therefore have no stand to argue against it. Once you actually read up on the principles and comprehend the actual ebb and tide of evolutionary understanding you can get back to us. Good day sir.

[@TylerNull]

@Str0ngbow Your fatuous post fails to address my point: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY for that which so upset you when I dared to reference it.

[@RickRamo]

My hypothesis? Capitalist: Give me a group to buy what I sell. Socialist: Give me.

[@TombaFanatic]

It also states that capitalism works well for large groups of people, but it naturally feels impersonal to us. We don't understand how the order emerges as our minds view things from a top-down perspective, not bottom-up (yet everything is always bottom-up). When we see rich people, we naturally think they somehow tricked people to become rich. They are explaining why many love socialism and hate capitalism, yet when put in practice socialism fails and capitalism succeeds.

[@TombaFanatic]

@jayspoonia What exactly does this video do to contradict the philosophy normally given by this channel? To me it said that we work well in socialism when it is a close-knit group. That is how humans have evolved over time and that is why socialism is so attractive to so many people. The problem is, when it is the state that creates it over a large scale, the sympathy that creates successful socialism isn't there and life gets worse for most people.

[@jayspoonia]

@PluripotentBrain , for starters we can start analyzing "social and moral intuitions".

[@danchisholm1]

Entire video overshadowed by the last 45 seconds.

[@vclxrr]

@ejohnwright So, when evolutionary psychology looks at a behavior in the context of biology, it carries a lot more weight with me than traditional psychology which may only analyse that same behavior in the context of other behaviors. It's bottom up, vs top down.

[@thepunishert]

i'm not fat, my ancestors were hunter-gathers

[@trime1851]

Excellent!

[@Liberty4Ever]

It's a shame that most of the comments on this video are the standard pro and con argument about evolution that is not useful because nothing is resolved. It's more of a religious argument.

[@jayspoonia]

@TombaFanatic , I do hope that you are not confusing between social cooperation and socialism. these are two very different concepts. leave aside a small group, socialism does not even work in the smallest viz marriage. as to our having evolved, I take it to mean progressed, humans have progressed in spite of and not because of socialism in its various variants.

[@DeSwiss]

@TombaFanatic "The main feature of capitalism is the seductive assertion that you can get something for nothing in this world. That you can manufacture wealth through money manipulation, and that it is OK to steal and hold captive the people's medium of exchange, then charge them out the ass for access. That you can do so with a clear conscience. Which you can, if you are the kind of sleazy prick who has inherited or stolen enough wealth to get into the game." ~ Joe Bageant

[@vclxrr]

@ejohnwright I wouldn't classify his reaction as a student in the 70's as pompous. Maybe "justifiably arrogant"? I say justified because i've been looking at the Human Condition for a long time, and i've been looking at how other ppl have looked at it. And i've found that more recent theorists seem to be more on-target than those of previous eras.

[@TombaFanatic]

@TylerNull My understanding is Theory - has so much evidence supporting it that you can base other hypothesis and theories around it and can be taken as a basic fact for the most part. But nothing in science is ever 100% sure, and it is possible to take down a theory, law, hypothesis with evidence against it. At this time, as far as I am aware, there is no legitimate test that has contributed evidence against evolution. If there is, please enlighten me with a private message.

[@Str0ngbow]

@TylerNull Since you obviously haven't picked up any book on the subject and request everyone here to explain it in a few short sentences (which we have) you can hear further explanation from AronRa's channel - specifically his "Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" series. Not researching it further is like refusing to pick up a book on Relativism to understand Einstein's principles (it is more than E=mc^2). You just be trollin'.

[@NOLAMarathon2010]

Let me try my hand at summing the idea (or one of the ideas) of this video: our apparent inextinguishable fascination with socialism is a vestigial computer program running in our brain, left over from the hunter-gathering days of the human species. Plausible, in my view.

[@Mister.Psychology]

This is like cocain. This interview is perfect.

[@rusk1992]

DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK THE INTRO SONG IS AWESOME !!!

[@MegaKev29]

God his wife seems bossy or something! I like this video! Would love know more about this subject. Would anyone know any good introductory books on this fascinating subject?

[@MANGOS487]

dont forget the pinker!

[@TylerNull]

@Str0ngbow "Creationism" is irrelevant to the failures of your magical E-word. Science isn't some kind of two-party system where notion "A" is valid because notion "B" isn't.

[@thomasraven]

The obnoxious split screen is obtrusive and distracts from the otherwise good content of this video.

[@tarikabaraka2251]

Leda Cosmides, es una psicóloga norteamericana, que junto a su esposo el antropólogo John Tooby, ayudó a desarrollar el campo de la psicología evolucionista. Cosmides originalmente estudió biología en la Universidad de Harvard, recibiendo su Bachelor of Arts en 1979.

[@zz773]

@nicademus1974 In the context of science, the word theory means something that's been proven scientifically. The only difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) is that a law can be expressed in a concise mathematical form. The theory of evolution is as true as the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease. (btw I love you pot videos!)

[@Virtueman1]

@nicademus1974 Can you prove that statement?

[@bigboss686]

@ryinski2 my my, it looks like you do love your no true Scotsman fallacy. Look, my friend it's as simple as this, you can quibble over the rate of purity as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that higher degrees of socialism/communism results themselves to less freedom for the people. Consequently, more economic freedom means more freedom overall.

[@nicademus1974]

@ryinski2 And there never will be socialism/communism on a mass scale without government forcing people to be socialist. What hasn't been tried is Voluntary associations of people on a mass scale.

[@mg1617s1]

wow this video says so much truth!!!! wow wow wow very true.

[@burnthesystem11]

cont from previous post -- conception of cognitive architecture these things would not exist. However, they are very real. The Standard Social Science model is also an erroneous claim; a rhetorical device to create a false dichotomy between their view and "the blank slate". No, I am pretty sure some people that argue against them in the field believe in evolution, just not their claims. Claims that seem astounding but upon close inspection are nothing more than platitudes.

[@dogbishop]

@PeeGeeBeeDee If capitalists created wealth and then hoarded it, they would starve, be naked, be homeless, not have cars, clothes, tv's, boats, planes, computers, ipods, golf clubs, fancy dinner, etc etc etc... no capitalist hoards wealth, that wealth gets redistributed through the very process of capitalism. Wealthy societies are healthier, cleaner, and safer than poorer societies.

[@zz773]

@neonshoji Biological evolution is a process of design---if you don't understand that, then you don't understand evolution.

[@stick1to2the3issue]

@ryinski2 the current system in america is not capitalism, nor is it free market and to characterize it as such is much more innacurate than the comparison of soviet russia to real communism.

[@elricmlbone]

Another positive for the Austrians

[@stick1to2the3issue]

@MannyMarvel - the only elite i'm worried about is the political class.

[@flyingturtle22]

@matthn25 there is no "middle ground" on this subject, evolution is accepted by 99.9 of all biologist and 95% of all scientists. evolution has a plethora of ways it can be disproved, none have succeeded, it is based on evidence from many different scientific fields and not logic. it's as accepted in biology as gravity is accepted in physics although gravity has much less evidence. it depends on what you mean by creation, if it's "god guided evolution" that's not creation (and has no evidence).

[@MannyMarvel]

@stick1to2the3issue your worry is well founded , however I think the political class is part of the problem. As a whole we may be up the creek with only one paddle bound to lose it with no hope except the sure sight of destruction and collapse. like a car crash, those who fasten for it have a chance of survival.

[@jayspoonia]

Dear Sir, I respect your channel very deeply and therefore I am very disturbed to see this video here. This video, to me, seems to espouse the very opposite of your philosophy. I am more than keen to to be convinced that I'm wrong. Kindly, if it is not asking for too much, put across the takeaways from this video.

[@arcanekrusader]

@XCritonX That's not true market: it's the 3rd way, fabian socialism.

[@TylerNull]

@Str0ngbow Yeah, stuff changes. Stuff changing is called evolution. Got it. Nice.

[@TombaFanatic]

@okturus Wealth is subjective. Today's poorest people probably live better lives then the poor people (and even middle class/upper class if you go back far enough) even if they have less "money." If I have $100 but I live a better life than I did with $200. Did I really get poorer?

[@Str0ngbow]

@Str0ngbow I meant "pro-ID" not AI. Too much coffee.

[@TylerNull]

@Str0ngbow Your inability to address ANY point is the only thing you have to be sorry for.

[@sirellyn]

@thepunishert Welcome to mutation and genetic diversity.

[@niriop]

Reason does this; they get people on and they force them to bash socialism; they even made Hitchens, a staunch socialist, do it as well. It's a dumb appeal to authority.

[@martinnolan88]

@hagsmunamadurinn she is right though.

[@nicademus1974]

@zz773 I wonder if that's why they call it "the THEORY of evolution". It is a theory that has much evidence and i do believe it to be true but it really can not be proven scientifically.

[@TylerNull]

@TombaFanatic Evolution is simply a word, not a scientific theory, and yet a full wad of beliefs under its name is taught as holy writ. As for your understanding of theory, its sort of backwards. Typically, a theory is proposed because something is empirically unexplained, e.g., Einstein's theories on relativity, or current String Theory. Later, they may be supported with empirical evidence. Contrary to Darwin's notion, they fossil record evidences the exact opposite of his claims..

[@Darusdei]

@TylerNull actualy it's more amusing to read from people like you, who have very hard time understanding the definitions... maby you should pick up a dictionary and check what reads under "scientific theory"

[@dogbishop]

@RWRamo Nice

[@XanatharEye]

This seems like a wild departure from the otherwise hardcore academia of these ReasonTV interview segments. I mean really, when the top minds of psychology themselves have stated it's a pseudo-science, you throw that in with something that took place in the far past, and you can pretty much speculate anything you want to.