You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'intelligent design' tag.
There’s no doubt about it, the average American diet is atrocious. Give us the 44 ounce softdrinks, Big Macs, ice cream, and snack cakes, and we’ll take that every time over a healthy diet of fruit and vegetables. Obesity is referred to as an “epidemic” in America. I agree with all of that.[1] Here’s where I get off of the bus:
Maybe your mother didn’t cry, “Mangia!” when you ate dinner, like mine did. Still, you’re likely to whisper it to yourself. That’s because you possess a simple survival impulse: Eat until sated. Our neanderthink legacy is to store as much energy as possible, since calories were scarce and uncertain for most of human evolutionary history and our metabolism was set to guard against the possibility of starvation tomorrow. The problem is that eating more doesn’t sate us; we merely recalibrate how much we think we need.
Our evolved mind-set on food hinders us in several ways. Our instincts tell us to keep eating well beyond when we are sated. Worse, the foods we crave—calorie-dense fats and sugars—were once rare and valued as a bulwark against starvation; now they’re plentiful and harmful in excess. We don’t crave plants, precisely because they were more abundant in our past. And if we do manage to temporarily gain a handle on the gustatory Disneyland in which we live, our dietary rigor plummets once we’ve lost weight.(1)
So, the notion is that our Neanderthink makes us do it. For the sake of argument, let’s say I concede this point for a moment. What is the recommendation?
We’re good at rationalizations to avoid governing our food intake. We tell ourselves, “I can get away with eating this delicious morsel,” or “It’s too hard to deny myself this scrumptious ice cream.” By yielding to such urges, we ratchet upward the amount of sugar and fat we crave, because we are tampering with a hormonal system finely attuned to the lack of such concentrated energy. On the savannah, the sweetest confection was wild fruit.
Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, famously summed up what you need to know to consume healthfully: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The method by which we might hew to this Paleolithic regimen can also be summed up in seven words: “Dieting gets easier if you don’t cheat.”
So the question is, how do the recommendations actually follow from the just so story? They don’t. It’s just, “Don’t eat too much, and eat mostly plants. Oh yeah, don’t cheat.” But this goes back to the premise of my original post, and that is that the Darwinian Psychology narrative is thought to add scientific authority to whatever is being discussed. Forget the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise in the article. That is irrelevant to why these folks invoke a Darwinian just so story. They think it adds credibility. For me, they just prevented the story from being printed out and handed to my patients, which could have been beneficial.
The same periodical also published an article entitled, How to Be a Good Storyteller not long before.(2)
Perhaps they find these articles unrelated, but I found them to be very related:
Stories also entertain, educate, and instill moral values—sometimes all at once. We can all tell narratives, whether in the classroom, the boardroom, or the living room, but it takes practice to become a fine raconteur.
It seems the folks over at Psychology Today have been getting their practice.
—References—
(1) Neanderthink: An Outsize Appetite, Courtesy of Evolution, Nando Pelusi Ph.D., (11/17/08), Psychology Today
(2) How to Spin a Good Story, Brian Andrew, (10/20/08), Psychology Today
—Footnotes—
[1] I have a simple experiment which I use to teach my patients about their diet. This one has to do with sugar, and more specifically folks who are addicted to soft drinks. Go two weeks without any soft drinks (it actually doesn’t matter if it’s a diet soft drink or regular), and then go out and buy the biggest soft drink you can. Then it will be clear to you what it does to your mind and body. This is something that has worked in each case. In fact, the research shows that drinking just one diet soft drink daily increases the risk of being overweight to an extent that is greater than regular soft drinks, although not by much. One diet soft drink daily increases your chances by approximately 42% whereas one sugar filled drink increases your chances by 38%. It goes up with each additional drink per day.
I am going to write an ongoing series on Darwinian Psychology (aka Evolutionary Psychology). Unfortunately, my chosen field (psychology) has probably generated more “just so”(1,2) stories than has biology. Paleontologist and Darwinist, Stephen J. Gould, wrote about “Darwinian Fundamentalism”,(3) and specifically singled out Darwinian Psychology for criticism. He also noted the similarity between Darwinism and fundamentalism:
But since the modern ultras [Ultra Darwinists] push their line with an almost theological fervor, and since the views of founding fathers do matter in religion, though supposedly not in science, Darwin’s own fierce opposition does become a factor in judgment.(3)
Equivalent of Darwinian Just So Story
I have noted an interesting phenomena among scientists and in “scientific” writings. Presenting a Darwinian “just so” story for the phenomena that you are discussing seems to provide the research with a veneer of scientific credibility. It is as if a Darwinian “just so” story is a suitable substitute for empirical data.
For those who study persuasion, they will note a similar phenomena in the general population. For example, people dressed in a suit and tie are more persuasive than those not dressed in this manner.(4) Authority is conferred to individuals dressed in this manner. For those of us who worked in an hospital setting in graduate school, we were always excited when we were able to wear a white lab coat, because the patients listened to us better and were more apt to follow our instructions.
As an aside, this may be related to evolutionary factors indicating intelligence. Intelligence among our ancestors may have been displayed by having unique abilities (such as making unique tools or being able to communicate in a way that less intelligent apes could not understand).[1] Over time, our ancestors would have developed a mutation to recognize these symbols as promoting survival, and would have thus been more attracted to individuals who displayed these symbols. [Yes, I'm being sarcastic here.]
So, I hope you enjoy this forthcoming series analyzing pseudoscientific Darwinian Psychology. There is a wealth of material upon which to draw. The motto for this area seems to be, “If it sounds good and references evolution, then it is science.”
—References—
(1) Just So Stories, Wikipedia
(2) Darwin Says “Just So…”
(3) Darwinian Fundamentalism, Stephen J. Gould, (1997)
(4) Perceived Symbols of Authority and Their Influence on Compliance, Bushman, B.J. (1984)
—Notes—
[1]. I have generated a Darwinian Just So Story to help provide credibility to this post. Did it work?
Take the simple test on my Intelligent Design blog to find out.
Now, you’ve read atheists assert that there is such a thing as free will, objective morality, and so forth without God. There’s a good post on Uncommon Descent that shows atheists who do no agree with this position. I recommend watching the video, as it is very illuminating.
What happens when we assume there is no design in life?
Here are links to my previous posts on Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism (Part I, and Part II) and Since the atheists are about the only ones commenting on my posts.
Nearly all psychologists will admit that people have psychological defense mechanisms. However, the concept of repressed memories is much more controversial….probably with good reason. You see, memory is not static…meaning it is not like a movie that is played back. It runs through the filter of the mind, emotions, and life experiences. It is susceptible to suggestion. Such as, “You remember him touching you, don’t you.” Patient responds “maybe….yes I think I do…” And comes to believe that this imagined event really happened.
Now, apart from the fact that memory is subject to suggestion, people REALLY DO have the capacity to repress memories. I can’t tell you the precise circumstances that are needed, it is an interaction of individual personality characteristics and the situation. Many people worry that, “Maybe something happened to me that I don’t remember.” I tell them, “Maybe, but don’t worry about it. If it is important that you remember, you will. If not, then you won’t. Trust your unconscious mind.”
I’ve seen it unfold in my office. Piece, by piece, the memory comes back as the emotion attached with each level of repression is released. Usually this is when there is a general knowledge of a ‘fact’ that something happened, but no memory for any specific details. As the emotion is released at each level, there is a deepening of experience and recall of more details. This unfolds in the safest way as dictated, determined, and seen as needed by the unconscious mind. I don’t press or suggest things to these patients…I’m just there to listen, empathize, and support. It unfolds on its own, and occurs only if needed to help the patient overcome their difficulties.
Now there have been times when repressed memories from the “infantile” stage of development come out in symbolic form in a dream. I remember one patient who dreamed of “squeezing” down a well and was attacked by 3 alligators. I told her, “They used forceps during your delivery at birth.” She had no conscious knowledge, or memory of this, as nobody does. She had never been told anything about this by her mother. However, she checked with her mother, and sure enough, it had occurred.
I don’t worry about, or focus on recovering repressed memories in treatment. I follow the patient’s needs. If it is needed, it will occur…I trust the unconscious mind of the patient. You see, God has created us with incredibly self protective minds…that also have self-corrective properties that can be utilized. I trust that completely.
I wrote before that my major professor in graduate school told me that I “was the most intelligent and hardest working student [he] had in 20 years of teaching.” I also noted that this was likely because he didn’t know I believed in God, and packed a 357 magnum under my bed.
It’s actually somewhat amazing to me that many intelligent people are not more rebellious or independent. If they are college educated, and also have graduate degrees, they come to believe, often by the subtle influence of professors, that belief in God is frankly stupid. The more educated you are, the less need you have for belief in God. It’s a crutch for stupid and uneducated people. I’ve heard that numerous times by ‘intelligent’ and ‘educated’ people.
I don’t find my belief in God to be a crutch. Frankly, it’s a lot more difficult than being an atheist or agnostic. Belief requires commitment….and commitment always requires effort and energy. Disbelief only requires hostility, and that’s easy for human beings. It’s deep in our bones…in our hearts…in mine….and in yours…
A friend of mine who is also a psychologist, was initially agnostic. He had some bizarre beliefs in my opinion, that ‘God’ was just ‘energy,’ and energy was everwhere and resulted in the universe. We’ve had many intelligent discussions about God. I remarked that, ‘Who doesn’t believe in energy.’ He’s slowly changed his beliefs about God, without any awareness that he has done so. Fine with me.
We were on a fishing trip one time, and I asked him, “John, take a look at your car sitting there. Do you think that evolved through random interaction of particles?” He replied, “No, of course not. That is the result of human intelligence, which evolved.” I responded that human intelligence was infinitely more complex than that car, but yet it was clear to him that the car had been designed. He responded….”Hmmmm….” The next time I saw him, he was thinking about going to church because of his daughter, but wanted to make sure it was liberal enough and was thinking of voting for John McCain. I assured him that the liberal Methodist Church and John McCain would meet the needs of any liberal.
Now Obama is a genuine LIBERAL. And I pointed out to my friend that we could look forward to universal health care, consistent with the Veteran’s Administration model with Obama. We both did our internship at a VA, and it was clear to both of us as to the work ethic in the VA. I pointed out that in universal health care, the best doctor gets paid the same as the worst doctor. So, what’s the incentive to be the “best doctor.” There is none. My father, a Vietnam vet, had to wait 2 years to get botched surgery that took 7 1/2 hours. It was corrected in the private sector in 2 1/2 hours with a much more complex surgery and cost 20,000 dollars and was done immediately. Was it worth it? Without a single doubt.
Am I intelligent? Based on your bias, maybe or maybe not. If you buy into the whole thing that education results in reasoned and rational atheism, then my education ‘didn’t take.’ So, if that’s the case then I probably just fooled people with my grades, hard work, and pseudointellectual musings. But if you believe in God, you probably think I’m intelligent. Frankly, I could care less one way or the other. I believe what I believe…..judge me as you will. I like it when people take a stand and unapologetically believe what they believe….and not just have an opinion because they think it is the ‘most intelligent.’
Recent Comments