Hacking the Programs in Your Mind: Interview with Evolutionary Psychologists Leda Cosmides & John Tooby
By unlocking mechanisms that evolved in the brain, they've halted implicit racial bias and found the first female advantage in spatial cognition.
"Human behavior is the most amazingly flexible behavior of any animal species," says UC Santa Barbara anthropology professor John Tooby, "but you can't unlock these potentialities unless you understand the circuit logic or the code of the programs in the head."
Reason TV's Nick Gillespie recently sat down with Tooby and Leda Cosmides, a professor of psychology, who co-founded and co-direct the UCSB Center for Evolutionary Psychology. They believe their approach to examining the information-processing mechanisms that have evolved in the brain can provide greater insights into human behavior and cognition.
Tooby describes their work as being at the intersection of anthropology and primatology, evolutionary biology, and information theory and computer science. Cosmides says she starts with the idea that "behavior is generated by programs in your head, and I don't mean it metaphorically'"devices that are designed by natural selection to process information and guide your behavior. Evolutionary psychology focuses on that intermediate step of what's the structure of those programs."
Cosmides does not believe a true science of the mind is possible without an understanding of such structures, arguing that only such an approach makes it possible to intervene to improve people's lives: "Just like being near-sighted doesn't mean you can't see'"there's glasses, contact lenses, there's laser surgery. Why is that true? Because people bothered to figure out how the eye works."
They push back forcefully against the criticism that an evolutionary approach is inherently racist or sexist, arguing that it deals with human universals. In fact, they believe their insights can unlock the best elements of human potential. Tooby cites as an example their success in getting people to stop implicitly categorizing others on the basis of race. The researchers hypothesized that this tendency was actually due to the modern co-opting of a cognitive program whose evolutionary function was to detect coalitions, so they crafted experiments that removed race as a predictor of coalition. "In just a few minutes'"so you have a lifetime of experience, supposedly, of learning race'"but people stopped categorizing by race in their memory systems and their implicit ways," says Tooby.
Cosmides describes a series of experiments that were the first ever in psychology to demonstrate a female advantage in spatial cognition, which they accomplished by testing spatial abilities that would have benefitted a gatherer rather than a hunter in an early human environment. "It's not because the scientists were male or female or anything like that. It's because they were starting from a theory about the adaptive problems our ancestors faced," states Cosmides.
The psychologists also discuss how their perspective differs dramatically from the traditional view of the mind as a blank slate that passively records and accepts what it's exposed to. "In an evolutionary psychology model, the person is in a really strong sense inventing themselves, instead of just downloading the environment and becoming what you're told to be," says Tooby.
For the full interview, watch the video above. Click below for downloadable versions. And subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
11:51 minutes.
Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Justin Monticello. Shot by Paul Detrick, Alex Manning, and Zach Weissmueller. Music by Yusuke Tsutsumi.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Hacking the Programs in Your Mind:" They mistyped "Chasing Agile Cyborg"
Interesting stuff. I would like to see Reason cover what work, if any, is being done that combines the insights of evo psych with behavioral economics. As an aside, it still amazes me that Dan Ariely could so successfully detail the "predictable irrationality" of human economic actors and still come to the conclusion that it's the invisible hand, as opposed to central planning, that doesn't work. What evolutionary pressures lead to that fallacy, I wonder?
He's a 'Top Man' in his field and he knows what he's doing.
Therefore the 'Top Men' in other fields must know what they're doing.
Some variant of the 'benefit of the doubt' fallacy and almost the opposite of the Gell-Mann Effect.
Sounds about right.
It is an interesting bias / blind spot that many behavioral economists seem to share.
There are two different suppositions in there that are important to address separately:
1. That in their policy recommendations, academic behavioral economists can transcend the systematic biases they identify; and
2. That in their policy recommendations (or proclamations), central planners and petty bureaucratic functionaries can transcend the systematic biases that behavioral economists identify.
(1) is ultimately somewhat believable, although they are still vulnerable to other biases (e.g., political bias). "Classics" like the endowment effect and loss aversion should be relatively easy for academics, who are (usually) not embedded within the bureaucracy and are instead viewing it from afar. Loss aversion (for instance) doesn't really come in when you're not actually in the position to lose something.
(2) is much less tenable, of course. Unlike academics, bureaucrats have many "things" that they "own" and hence may overvalue (endowment effect), are typically quite loss averse (in a particularly perverse way given the incentives system in place), and so on.
I think the mistake is that the academics project their ability to think rationally (relatively, in certain respects) about policy choices onto the bureaucrats -- projection, after all, doesn't always have to involve negative characteristics.
What's all this psuedoscience, quackery and religion doing in my Reason?
And without a Ron Bailey byline?
She's wearing The Jacket. Has no one else noticed?
"The psychologists also discuss how their perspective differs dramatically from the traditional view of the mind as a blank slate that passively records and accepts what it's exposed to."
traditional?
"Standard" would be a better term, but it's not as if Aristotle and Locke aren't part of a long and distinguished pedigree.
"Standard" isn't the right word either. "The kind of dumb shit only a fart sniffing intellectual could believe" is better.
"Continental philosophy" is less wordy, though.
well played
Clearly this so-called "science" is merely another oppressive tool of the patriarchy. Everyone knows that we are molded by our corporate oligarchs to hate people different than we are, view women as a rape medium and be busy consumers. I bet their research is funded by the Koch brothers
/progtard
Fascinating interview. It always amazes me that we keep coming back to this conclusion that humans might have innate traits or born-in behavioral biases.
Hmm, its almost like we don't have any significant amount of free will . . .
I thought the interview was great, describing humans as the most behaviorally flexible species on the planet, but that we aren't a complete blank slate.
Anyone who still believes in "any significant amount of free will" after about age 50 hasn't been paying attention.
I'll have to think about that and get back to you.
Or been married.
Of course we do-only, if we think we do. The significance is in our expectations.
We are never very far removed from the animal kingdom- our original origins.
This is more of the same ol, same ol biological mysticism ("materialism") that the lamestream intellectuals have been fantasizing about since Marx and Freud. The pre-science of psychology is their latest attempt to reduce man to a mindless chunk of meat (whose consciousness is merely a facility to follow their orders, with no volition of its own).
That is a very shallow view of science in general. The basic premise is that by seeking to understand more about how things, including minds, work, they are robbing you of your own fantasy (mysticism, ignorance) of how you think it works. There is not really a philosophical premise that science is attempting to prove, it's very simply about the accumulation of knowledge. If the gaining of knowledge is scary to you, that is probably a weakness of your philosophy.
In fact they very clearly argued against the idea that the mind is a passive observer and order taker.
I don't see the problem with using race as a signal for making decisions about which people you should trust and which you shouldn't. This system didn't evolve through some kind of accident or mistake, but because it works to make your life better.
Look at it this way: If a scientist went around trying to stop women's biases against registered sex offenders, we would see immediately the nuttiness of this ideology. Women have perfectly good reasons to want to avoid contact with such people.
That's not how it works.
Race has everything to do with avoiding skin cancer and converting sunlight to vitamin D (not sure exactly which one).
It has nothing to do with whether the neighboring tribe is trustworthy.
It worked at the time because "race" was well correlated with tribal divisions. That indicator is no longer well correlated.
Reginald Denny disagrees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMP6bXnXdZM
Oh my, an anecdote. Well done.
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.work-cash.com
Interesting followup to John Lilly, 3 decades later.
http://www.amazon.com/Programm.....051752757X
Hacker program? Feeling tired.I did not understand.
I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out.
For information check this site. ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com
EvoPsych is legitimate? That's amusing. I'm sure Ron Bailey thinks highly of it, with his training in polemics-ignorant-of-science. It's nearly as specious as economics or sociology.
So human cognition isn't the result of evolution? Natural selection stopped at the neck? Fascinating.
Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com
Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com
Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com