hkhenson@rogers... 
            Adept                
  
            Gender:   
            Posts: 130 Reputation: 7.22 Rate hkhenson@rogers... 
           
  
  back after a long time 
                  
                   
			
			 | 
            
            
              
                  | 
                
                virus: Human motivation was SURVIVAL: An impulse behind transhumanism? 
                «  on: 2006-06-30 23:21:24 » | 
                                                   | 
               
             
             
            Am posting this to the virus list because the extropy-chat list is broken  (not generally, but it won't accept my postings recently due to what I this  is a misconfiguration). --Keith
  At 09:30 AM 6/30/2006 -0700, Jef wrote:
  snip
  >Keith, I agree with you that Maslow operated without the benefit of >current thinking in evolutionary psychology (and it shows), but >wouldn't you agree that his hierarchy of needs still generally holds >and was intended to be descriptive while evolutionary psychology is >intended to be explanatory?
  No.  It does not hold, and if it is going to be considered science,  description and explanation have to be in harmony.
  I dislike being hard nosed about this, but there comes a time when you just  have to junk older models for better models.
  Contrast Maslow's "A Theory of Human Motivation (1943," with Azar Gat's  article: <quote>
  THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF  HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING
  Azar Gat
  Part I: Primary Somatic and Reproductive Causes
  At the centre of this study is the age-old philosophical and psychological  inquiry into the nature of the basic human system of motivation. Numerous  lists of basic needs and desires have been put together over the centuries,  more or less casually or convincingly. The most recent ones show little if  any marked progress over the older, back to Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, 6 (e.g. Maslow 1970 [1954]; Burton 1990).
  In the absence of an evolutionary perspective, these lists have always had  something arbitrary and trivial about them. They lacked a unifying  regulatory rationale that would suggest why the various needs and desires  came to be, or how they related to one another.
  Arguing that the human motivational system as a whole should be approached  from the evolutionary perspective, this study focuses on the causes of  fighting. It examines what can be meaningfully referred to as the 'human  state of nature', the 99.5 percent of the genus Homo's evolutionary history  in which humans lived as hunter-gatherers.
  In this 'state of nature' people's behaviour patterns are generally to be  considered as evolutionarily adaptive. They form the evolutionary  inheritance that we have carried with us throughout later history, when  this inheritance has constantly interacted and been interwoven with the  human staggering cultural development.
  snip
  </quote>
  http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf
  [Well worth reading--several times!]
  Maslow is just wrong in his analysis of human needs saying that ones higher  up the list will trump lower ones..
  1. Physiological 2. Safety 3. Love/Belonging 4. Esteem 5. Actualization
  In order to save family members, particularly children, but other close  relatives according to Hamilton and Haldane's relatedness criteria, people  will ignore safety and even put themselves in places where they will be  killed (overriding 1 and 2 for 3).
  Likewise in attempting to gain status (#4) males particularly will ignore  their safety and even psychological needs.
  Maslow *did* recognize that status seeking was a human need, in that I have  to give him credit.  But he had no idea of *why* or how it might override  others of his list.  To understand that you must go to evolutionary  psychology and the hunter gatherer environment in which it evolved and  consider how genes for such behavior would have had a selective advantage.
  You simply are not going to get anywhere trying to understand drug  addiction, Stockholm syndrome, suicide bombers or war with Maslow.  And if  you don't understand a problem chances are better than 50-50 that actions  you take on the basis of the wrong model are going to make the problem  worse.  I.e., D.A.R.E.
  There is a difference between honoring influential people of the past and  following their models that are now known to be incomplete or just wrong.
  Best wishes,
  Keith Henson
  --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
  
             |