Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
====Response to [[User:Mostly Zen|Mostly Zen]]==== |
====Response to [[User:Mostly Zen|Mostly Zen]]==== |
||
− | *To what extent do you think we can use our intelligence and self control to overcome past habits of behaviour though? |
+ | *<b>To what extent do you think we can use our intelligence and self control to overcome past habits of behaviour though?</b> |
**Well, I guess I would have to say that the more we know, the more we'll be able to do. Just like a deeper understanding of things like [[biochemistry]] and [[pharmacology]] can give us a better understanding of how to prevent, treat, and cure cancer, I think a better understanding of how biology and environment interact will give us a better understanding on how to control or alter our behaviors. |
**Well, I guess I would have to say that the more we know, the more we'll be able to do. Just like a deeper understanding of things like [[biochemistry]] and [[pharmacology]] can give us a better understanding of how to prevent, treat, and cure cancer, I think a better understanding of how biology and environment interact will give us a better understanding on how to control or alter our behaviors. |
||
+ | ***Yes, this is pretty much what I think. As we learn how we work, both from a biopsychological/evolutionary way and in terms of environmental conditioning, we gain an abtract awareness of the processes responsible for our behaviour. With this awareness we have the potential for greater control of our behaviour, which along with self awareness and language is what distinguishes us from other animals I feel. |
||
⚫ | |||
+ | |||
⚫ | |||
**I don't prescribe to determinism, biological or environmental. I think an evolutionary perspective, though, can help illuminate the tendencies, capacities, and constraints of our behaviors. |
**I don't prescribe to determinism, biological or environmental. I think an evolutionary perspective, though, can help illuminate the tendencies, capacities, and constraints of our behaviors. |
||
+ | *** I didn't really mean deterministic. I don't really like the determinism vs free will debate, as thats as silly as the Genes vs Environment perspective that I suggested earlier. I think that its an interaction between processes over which we have no control, and the emerging control over behaviour that human beings have. Consider smoking cigarettes. Does the human being smoke them of his own free will? or because he is addicted, because the cigarettes just so happen to stimulate his nicotinic receptors, and cause a dopamine release? Does the human being give up cigarettes of his own free will? I think that giving up addictive behaviour is a good example of free will/willpower. |
||
⚫ | |||
+ | |||
⚫ | |||
**Again, a tough one to answer. The more we know, the better we'll be able to answer that question. But I do believe we are incredibly flexible...one could argue that that is one of our most adaptive traits! |
**Again, a tough one to answer. The more we know, the better we'll be able to answer that question. But I do believe we are incredibly flexible...one could argue that that is one of our most adaptive traits! |
||
+ | ***Yes I totally agree with you here :) |
||
⚫ | |||
+ | |||
⚫ | |||
**Some answers to that question may lie in hypotheses based upon theories like [[r/K selection theory]] and [[life-history theory]].Another thing to consider is that evolutionary psychologists have traditionally ignored things like [[classical conditioning]] and [[operant conditioning]]. I think this has more to do with EP's roots in [[cognitive psychology]] and that discipline's historical animosity with [[behaviorism]] being carried over into EP than with actual epistemelogical irreconcilability. A rare exception to this unfortunate trend begins on the 22nd page of this paper, under the sub-heading "Pavlovian conditioning": [http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/iq.pdf] [[User:Jaywin|Jaywin]] 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
**Some answers to that question may lie in hypotheses based upon theories like [[r/K selection theory]] and [[life-history theory]].Another thing to consider is that evolutionary psychologists have traditionally ignored things like [[classical conditioning]] and [[operant conditioning]]. I think this has more to do with EP's roots in [[cognitive psychology]] and that discipline's historical animosity with [[behaviorism]] being carried over into EP than with actual epistemelogical irreconcilability. A rare exception to this unfortunate trend begins on the 22nd page of this paper, under the sub-heading "Pavlovian conditioning": [http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/iq.pdf] [[User:Jaywin|Jaywin]] 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
+ | *** I was thinking that aspects of conditioning and an evolutionary approach are in fact different views of the same mechanisms, rather than top and bottom down approaches (as per ToK). Consider that we become conditioned to liking certain foods, such as those high in sugar and fats. From an evolutionary perspective, this is a good idea as foods like that are hard to come by, but now obviously, its not so good as those foods are easy to get. I think that <em>liking</em> the tastes of foods that are good for us might be instinctual, but it is entirely possible that it is in fact conditioned. Smokers actually like the smell of tobacco smoke, which most of us don't. I think that conditioning works by the organism associating certain stimuli with a pleasureable sensation, perhaps caused by dopamine release? I'll have a read of that paper you suggested. [[User:Mostly Zen|Mostly Zen]] 10:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | I also think that we can have greater control of our behaviour as we gain greater understanding and control over addictive mec |
Revision as of 10:56, 24 June 2006
|