Changed tradeoffs. Evolution ‘‘designed’’ the system for operation in one type of environment, but now we wish to deploy it in a very different type of environment
An important question—how changed is the environment, really? Yes, there are plenty of cases where a changed environment is obviously breaking our evolved reasoning algorithms, but I suspect many people might be overstating the difference.
Value discordance. There is a discrepancy between the standards by which evolution measured the quality of her work, and the standards that we wish to apply.
At the risk of falling into a purely semantic discussion, this doesn’t mean the algorithms wouldn’t be optimal. It just makes them optimized for some other purpose than the one we’d prefer.
An important question—how changed is the environment, really?
That’s a great discussion to have. I’d say the biggest changes are that a modern person interacts with a lot of other people and receives a lot of symbolic information. Other “major” changes, like increased availability of food or better infant healthcare, look to me minor by comparison. Not sure how to weigh this stuff, though.
I suspect the optimal evolved system in a modern environment (efficient and effective) is an idiot savant that can live long enough to spit out the source code for an AI guaranteed to increase the inclusive fitness of the genes of the host.
Genetic engineering and sperm/egg donation are other modern inventions I don’t think we are all exploiting to increase our fitness optimally.
One of the fundamental ways the environment has changed locally must be the level of information that we are now able to process. Namely, since writing was invented, we’ve been able to consume (I would suppose) far more knowledge from far more sources. But, after all, since writing is just like a mimic of speech that we were originally “designed” for, I can’t imagine the modern environment is so much different for our built in algorithms for writing. And similarly for many other “modern” aspects of life.
Edit: Interestingly, I suppose books and written information have essentially developed in civilization as a response to the weaknesses of the evolved brain. Thus, many of the deficiencies in our cognitive operations have actually been attacked by civilization. Insofar as the brain was not properly designed, the modern environment has largely been a source of positive, external cognitive optimization/reorganization.
One might propose that the environment has actually become far less challenging in modern times; certainly I haven’t had to hunt and kill for food anytime in recent memory. Now, I can live far longer, with much less (positive) stress, I can smoke and drink and damage my mind at will, I have the express ability to become morbidly obese and mentally unhealthy, and so on. I can freely read and absorb widely disseminated propaganda from sources like Hitler, in maybe the worst case scenario. Perhaps the environment has been effectively weakening our internal algorithms through this kind of under usage and exploitation, rather than through any incidental non-optimization.
Good point. Civilization allows to use the strengths of our native makeup more efficiently, thus instead of being “disadjusted” because of change since the EEA, in many areas we are more at home than could ever be naturally.
We have to do far more very-long-term planning than in the EEA, we are protected from starvation by easy job markets and stable food sources like food shops, we have access to healthcare, both mental and physical.
Most prominently, our explicit beliefs matter more for decision theory than for signalling, whereas in the EEA the opposite was true.
We have to do far more very-long-term planning than in the EEA
As societies, perhaps. As individuals, probably not. I find it a bit odd that you mention a decreased risk of starvation at the same time as this item; needing to look forward a year or preferably several to make sure you didn’t run out of food during the winter (or the winter after that) has been a major factor in the past. Even if you lived in a warm country, it seems like there would have been more long-term dangers than there are now, when we have a variety of safety networks and a much safer society.
Most prominently, our explicit beliefs matter more for decision theory than for signalling, whereas in the EEA the opposite was true.
Existential risks excluded, I’m not sure if this is true.
Hunter-gatherers, possibly not, but we’ve had agriculture around for 10,000 years. That has been enough time for other selection effects (for instance, the persistent domestication of cattle, and the associated dairying activities, did alter the selective environments of some human populations for sufficient generations to select for genes that today confer greater adult lactose tolerance), so I’d be cautious about putting too much weight on the hunter-gatherer environment.
interesting. So in fact for those adaptations that could be implemented in just 10,000⁄20 = 500 generations are probably more skewed towards rationality.
We can probably see the difference that those 500 generations made by the differences in life outcomes between those with aboriginal Australian DNA and white European DNA.
hmmm well I was actually considering the point purely from an academic POV—it occurred to me that the aboriginals were a near-perfect example. But now that you point it out, I guess that comment could be construed as “in bad taste” or “racist” or something.
An important question—how changed is the environment, really? Yes, there are plenty of cases where a changed environment is obviously breaking our evolved reasoning algorithms, but I suspect many people might be overstating the difference.
At the risk of falling into a purely semantic discussion, this doesn’t mean the algorithms wouldn’t be optimal. It just makes them optimized for some other purpose than the one we’d prefer.
That’s a great discussion to have. I’d say the biggest changes are that a modern person interacts with a lot of other people and receives a lot of symbolic information. Other “major” changes, like increased availability of food or better infant healthcare, look to me minor by comparison. Not sure how to weigh this stuff, though.
We now also have computers.
I suspect the optimal evolved system in a modern environment (efficient and effective) is an idiot savant that can live long enough to spit out the source code for an AI guaranteed to increase the inclusive fitness of the genes of the host.
Genetic engineering and sperm/egg donation are other modern inventions I don’t think we are all exploiting to increase our fitness optimally.
One of the fundamental ways the environment has changed locally must be the level of information that we are now able to process. Namely, since writing was invented, we’ve been able to consume (I would suppose) far more knowledge from far more sources. But, after all, since writing is just like a mimic of speech that we were originally “designed” for, I can’t imagine the modern environment is so much different for our built in algorithms for writing. And similarly for many other “modern” aspects of life.
Edit: Interestingly, I suppose books and written information have essentially developed in civilization as a response to the weaknesses of the evolved brain. Thus, many of the deficiencies in our cognitive operations have actually been attacked by civilization. Insofar as the brain was not properly designed, the modern environment has largely been a source of positive, external cognitive optimization/reorganization.
One might propose that the environment has actually become far less challenging in modern times; certainly I haven’t had to hunt and kill for food anytime in recent memory. Now, I can live far longer, with much less (positive) stress, I can smoke and drink and damage my mind at will, I have the express ability to become morbidly obese and mentally unhealthy, and so on. I can freely read and absorb widely disseminated propaganda from sources like Hitler, in maybe the worst case scenario. Perhaps the environment has been effectively weakening our internal algorithms through this kind of under usage and exploitation, rather than through any incidental non-optimization.
Good point. Civilization allows to use the strengths of our native makeup more efficiently, thus instead of being “disadjusted” because of change since the EEA, in many areas we are more at home than could ever be naturally.
We have to do far more very-long-term planning than in the EEA, we are protected from starvation by easy job markets and stable food sources like food shops, we have access to healthcare, both mental and physical.
Most prominently, our explicit beliefs matter more for decision theory than for signalling, whereas in the EEA the opposite was true.
As societies, perhaps. As individuals, probably not. I find it a bit odd that you mention a decreased risk of starvation at the same time as this item; needing to look forward a year or preferably several to make sure you didn’t run out of food during the winter (or the winter after that) has been a major factor in the past. Even if you lived in a warm country, it seems like there would have been more long-term dangers than there are now, when we have a variety of safety networks and a much safer society.
Existential risks excluded, I’m not sure if this is true.
Example: deciding to study at school rather than slack off.
Granted.
Did hunter gatherers really look forward several winters ahead?
Hunter-gatherers, possibly not, but we’ve had agriculture around for 10,000 years. That has been enough time for other selection effects (for instance, the persistent domestication of cattle, and the associated dairying activities, did alter the selective environments of some human populations for sufficient generations to select for genes that today confer greater adult lactose tolerance), so I’d be cautious about putting too much weight on the hunter-gatherer environment.
interesting. So in fact for those adaptations that could be implemented in just 10,000⁄20 = 500 generations are probably more skewed towards rationality.
We can probably see the difference that those 500 generations made by the differences in life outcomes between those with aboriginal Australian DNA and white European DNA.
Why be needlessly inflammatory?
It provides an test for the theory?
hmmm well I was actually considering the point purely from an academic POV—it occurred to me that the aboriginals were a near-perfect example. But now that you point it out, I guess that comment could be construed as “in bad taste” or “racist” or something.
Cultural differences are hard to factor out, too.