Evolutionary Psychology

Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new field of study that strives to determine and analyze human mating strategies and behavior. (Buss, 264). To understand evolutionary psychology, one must first understand Darwin’s theory of evolution – survival of the fittest. Darwin believed that all species on Earth adapt based on the qualities, the individuals with the best qualities for survival were chosen for reproduction and therefore their genes were passed on to the next generation. Darwin’s theory works as a sort of “weeding out” process until the population is filled with the most admirable individuals. Evolutionary psychology uses Darwin’s ideas and applies them to human sexual behavior and mating processes. According to evolutionary psychologists, we (as the human race) do not need heterosexual, monogamous marriages. There is a lot of supporting evidence that one must sort through before coming to an informed decision. I would certainly agree with the evolutionary psychologists in believing that we do not need heterosexual, monogamous marriages.

From the evolutionary standpoint, the only purpose of forming a union would be to produce offspring. Men must spread their seed to as many women as they can, so as to pass along their own genes so they will not be left in the dust. Women must hold true to some type of standard to ensure their offspring obtains the best qualities (strength, intelligence, etc.). Many would argue that men have the upper-hand from this evolutionary standpoint but without female consent men would not be able to project offspring, “Female preferences, in short, determine many of the ground rules for male contests” (Buss, 269). This means that there is some deliberation on both parts before consenting to the reproduction of children.

Robert Wright goes in to adamant explanation as to why humans are not meant to be monogamous, “The good news is that human beings are designed to fall in love. The bad news is that they aren’t designed to stay there” (Wright 280). Wright goes on to explain that humans were not made to be monogamous; our hearts want to be monogamous because we believe that will bring us true happiness, but our bodies are biologically and evolutionarily pre-disposed to be promiscuous – and even to some extent polygamous.

I feel that we as a society need marriage because it has been one of the longest standing traditions that I can think of. Marriage is such an institution; especially here in the United States that I feel a lot of us would be doomed without it. But, in saying that, I do not believe that heterosexual, monogamous marriage is what we NEED. We live in a society with ever-changing values and to limit our tolerance to just heterosexual and monogamous marriages would be ignorant. We no longer need marriage as a form of reproduction, we are very much overpopulated. I feel that we need marriage to stay in our society but not to shape us in to cookie-cutter relationships. As long as we do not let the human population die off, which is highly unlikely according to evolutionary psychologists, we should try to cherish the tradition of marriage for what it truly is, without worrying about reproduction and offspring – that will take care of itself. 

Rules of Conversation

I would like to believe that I am a good conversationalist - I follow all the rules, take turns and offer feedback when necessary. Along with these rules, I truly value eye contact in a conversation, I feel like eye contact assures me that the other person is really listening and comprehending what I am saying. In some of my previous classes I have learned that during a normal conversation, it is socially acceptable to maintain eye contact for 75% of the time and I completely agree - I don't need to be stared at without blinking but I would like my conversation partner to look me in the eyes for some part of the conversation.


According to Deborah Tannen, my expectations of eye contact may be too high for a conversation with a member of the opposite sex. Men do not feel the need to keep eye contact or even use it periodically. This used to drive me nuts with a previous boyfriend, he would barely keep eye contact with me, even when the conversation was important! I used to get so frustrated that sometimes I would take both of my hands and put one on either side of his head and make him look at me to make sure he understood how important my message was (this wasn't used for long conversations haha). I felt that he was being so in-attentive that I needed to force him to physically look me in the eyes. Tannen explains that men (and boys) do not customarily face each other when speaking and don't hold that much eye contact; "I found that at every age, the girls and women faced each other directly, their eyes anchored on each other's faces. At every age, the boys and men sat at angles to each other and looked elsewhere in the room...But the tendency of men to face away can give women the impression that they aren't listening even when they are" (Tannen, 242). Men do not realize they are listening in a different way than women listen, they don't understand that women need more interaction and attentiveness. Men listen to women the same way they listen to men and that's why women feel they aren't being heard. 


With this knowledge that men listen differently than women explains why so many women feel that the men are not listening, understanding, or supporting. Tannen has explained that even though men may look like they are not listening, they may be hearing every single word. If all women knew about the research and study of these cultural communication differences, I feel that they would all be much more understanding of their boyfriends, husbands, etc. 

Week 6 Blog Reviews

First off, hello! I'm excited to be part of a new group for unit 2 and to be able to read other blogs.


Amber:
Real Wild Women
I found your Real Wild Women blog post to be super easy to read and very informative. I have seen (and own!) Mr. and Mrs. Smith but if I had not, I still would have been able to understand your post on an intellectual level. You did a great overview of the movie without taking the summary too far and then related it back to the articles. Great job!


The American Family
This blog post has a great introduction and you really develop what you believe to be true about american families. Although, I sort of feel like the post just ends without any kind of conclusion of ideas or final thought. The post ends by talking about money and how it affects the family but there is no concrete ending to that thought. It seems like a great start to a bigger piece of work though - I would just suggest a little bit more development of a main thesis or idea.


Jordan: 
Real Wild Women/Wild Real Men
I really enjoyed reading this post. Your thoughts were clear and well-organized. You took specific examples from the show and related them back to the articles to support your claims. Although I am not familiar with the show Chuck I was able to follow your essay and understand the point you were trying to get across. My only suggestion would be to be a little bit more specific with your examples from both the show and the book.


Hidden Histories
This post contains a lot of opinions without the support from textbooks or outside sources that is needed to back-up the claims. I didn't recognize a clear thesis or main idea and the flow of the paragraph was a little jumpy. I'd recommend a little better development of ideas along with textual support of outside sources.

Homosexuality, Capitalism and Technology

In D'Emilio's essay, titled Capitalism and Gay Identity, he argues that homosexuality originated with the capitalist movement in the United States. He suggests that capitalism allowed for homosexuals to freely identify with a sexual identity - even though some were previously engaging in homosexual behavior, they were now able to identify with a larger group in common society. D'Emilio says, "The fact that capitalism had drawn far more men than women into the labor force, and at higher wages. Men could more easily construct a personal life independent of attachments to the opposite sex, whereas women were more likely to remain economically dependent on men...College educated white women, far more able than their working-class sisters to support themselves, could survive more easily without intimate relationships with men" (D'Emilio, 231). So, he says that due to the growth of wage labor, both men and women were free to live independently from one another and this spurred identification with homosexual identities. I can see why D'Emilio believes this to be so, but my opinion differs slightly. I feel there was homosexual behavior and identity around before capitalism - but capitalism can definitely be named as a contributing factor to the growth of the homosexual revolution. 


As our current economic and social life changes, our family dynamics change. I believe it is important to keep record of the socio-economic shifts, although I think we all have to remember that the social economic standards can change drastically in a heart-beat. To dwell on why the standards change now versus how they changed before can teach us a lot but those standards are going to continue to change rapidly while we keep up. The current state of the American family is much different than it was in the 1970's and the new American family will be remarkably different than today's family. Any changes to the ideal that D'Emilio proposes are related to the changing economic structures of today's American family. The economic and social structures are flexible are will continue to stretch and form in to new standards for the next generation. 

Peer Review - Reposted from Blackboard

Lauren,

Your essay has a great central topic and you seem like you have done a lot of research to create solid groundwork for your essay.  The essay looks like it can really turn in to something great with a little clean up. I would focus on more transitions between paragraphs – a few of yours ended with citations and kind of leaves the reader open-ended. But besides that everything looks awesome, you have a strong topic and attention-grabbing introduction. You use outside sources to support your views and they tie in nicely, organization-wise. I can’t wait to see your final product, good luck!

Jacqueline,

            I loved your essay describing Kahlo’s life and artwork. You did a fantastic job of describing the artwork and also interpreting your own ideas and analysis into your essay. I only have a few suggestions; first, you have added some citations to your introduction paragraph and although they transition well with the paragraph, it threw me off a bit as a reader. Usually an introduction just lays some groundwork for what is to come in your essay. Second, and I have no idea is this is “allowed” but I’d love to see some images incorporated into the essay word document – I don’t know if that is at all possible but it’s just a suggestion. Other than those minor details it seems like you have a really awesome essay and I’m sure the final draft will be great!

Tasha,

            Your voice in the essay was just fantastic, I really felt like we were just talking and you were telling me about this new thing you learned about. It was really easy to read and follow along. You used outside sources well, although I would love to see maybe a direct quote from one of your sources in there, just for some support. The essay had wonderful transitions and flowed very nicely. I’m positive your final draft will be just as phenomenal – good luck!

Analytic Essay on Consciousness

With the ever-growing population of scientists and researchers, many of them still cannot decide on a single, true definition of consciousness - I believe this is where the debate begins and thrives. What is consciousness? Is it cognitive alertness? Is it the ability to formulate thoughts and opinions? And does that include being able to express and communicate those thoughts and opinions? My definition of consciousness is a state of cognitive functioning that allows the physical brain to identify "self-awareness, emotion, perception, and reasoning" (Hazen 95). Based on this definition, consciousness is much more than the physical neurological data that we can analyze - which is why I choose to believe that the study of consciousness is not scientific. At least, not yet.

For a concept such as consciousness to be scientific, there must be a clear question and a process in which to find an answer. The study of consciousness as a science has yet to meet those qualifications; groups of researchers cannot define consciousness, so is the main question “what is consciousness?” or something deeper? Now, let’s say that there is a central definition of consciousness – the next step would be to research and create experiments, collect data, make observations, and come to some type of conclusion. Many scientists are arguing that this will happen one day, but I am very skeptical. Consciousness is so abstract and such a unique human quality that I believe we are decades, maybe even centuries, away from being able to classify consciousness as a science. So if consciousness is not scientific, what is it? Many argue that the key to understanding consciousness is understanding neuroscience.

Although the knowledge of neuroscience adds an intriguing realm to consciousness, I do not believe that it is the “key” to the mystery of consciousness. I feel we keep trying to answer a scientific question that is completely unscientific. Understanding cognitive functions will not help us understand consciousness, although neuroscience does paint an interesting picture and aids in our understanding of the human brain. John Searle argues exactly the opposite – Searle believes that not only is consciousness scientific, but he clearly lays out instruction for how to study it. I am not arguing that neuroscience is irrelevant to consciousness because there is physical evidence of cognitive alertness - “Perhaps we are wrong to think that neurons and synapses are the right anatomical units to account for consciousness, but we do know that some elements of brain anatomy must be the right level of description for answering our question. We know this because we know that brains do cause consciousness in a way that elbows, livers, television sets, cars and commercial computers do not, and therefore, we know that the special features of brains, features that they do not have in common with elbows, livers, etc., must be essential to the casual explanation of consciousness” (Searles, 1935). I would be naïve to believe that the brain does not aid in consciousness because our brains and consciousness sets us apart from inanimate objects. Simply, I believe that although neuroscience is central to understanding consciousness, it is not a sole explanation to the idea of consciousness.

Alright, so consciousness is not scientific and it cannot be explained by neuroscience. So you’re probably thinking – what is it?! Well, I do not have an answer. Consciousness is the way the sun feels on your skin after you’ve been in a chilly room, it is knowing when to comfort a friend, it is being able to make small talk and jokes with a stranger on a train. I know that these are only examples but for consciousness to be scientific, we must be able to explain WHY humans are able to do these specific things and others like them. E. Roy John proposes a theory for consciousness that I have come to adopt as my own belief, “The key to consciousness lies in understanding how meaningful perceptions are generated in the brain from discrete discharges in huge populations of neurons” (John, 244). John is saying that the brain generates messages of meaningful perceptions – so there is a neurological component of consciousness but the real mystery of it is that the perceptions of consciousness are meaningful. What causes those messages from the brain to be meaningful and important? This is the main question in which we may never find an answer.

I believe we are trying to answer a question that is not specific enough to yield the type of answer that we want. We are offering only black and white options when consciousness may be a grey area. Before we can start analyzing consciousness and testing it in experiments, we must find a common definition and agree about the creation/origin of consciousness. I feel we are still way beyond our years in coming to a conclusion about the concept of consciousness but I am excited to be a part of the continuing research and academia.

Works Cited

Hazen, Robert M. “The Great Unknown.” Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 93-95.

John, E. Roy. "A Theory of Consciousness." Current Directions in Psychological Science Dec. 2003: 244-250. JSTOR. Web. 14 Sep. 2010.

Searle, John R. "How to Study Consciousness Scientifically." Philosophical Transcations:            Biological Sciences 29 Nov. 1998: 1935-1942. JSTOR. Web. 14 Sep. 2010.

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Lauren Spencer:
Robotic Beings Rule the World
I enjoyed reading about your viewpoint on artificial intelligence and how you feel machines can never be smarter than humans. I would only suggest that you create more of a central thesis in your writing; if you can stem from one central idea your writing will be able to mesh better. With this robot post I felt your ideas were a bit scattered and it was hard to find sentences that related to other sentences. Although you were able to express your opinion, it was a bit hard to follow as a reader. 


Cristina My Sister
I loved everything about this Frida Kahlo post and you wrote about her art so beautifully. You were able to not only describe the physical painting but also analyze and interpret the meaning behind the piece. Good job!


Jacqueline Pridgett:
Can Machines Think?
This article started out very strong and clear - you stated what Wright believes and how your views are opposing. You used fantastic direct quotes from the reading to support your ideas. But the last paragraph threw me, there was a whole new topic of God and conciousness introduced when I thought you'd be talking more about computers/machines thinking. Although your ideas about God and consciousness are intriguing, the paragraph was not transitioned well in to the earlier part of your post. My only suggestion is to keep one central idea and conclude it before starting another. I have no doubts that your writing will be fantastic. 


The Broken Column
This post was fantastic, your writing was wonderfully descriptive and I could really see and understand what you were describing. Your image did not show up in my browser, it may just be a glitch but you did such an awesome job of describing the painting that I did not even need the visual aid. 


Tasha Cerimeli: 
Can Computers Think?
Your post was just phenomenal. Seriously, I have no constructive criticism or thoughts other than this was amazing and well-versed. Everything flowed nicely. Your transitions and strong sense of personal voice made this post extremely easy to read and interesting.


My Grandparents, My Parents, and I
You did a wonderful job of describing the physical painting and every detail was mentioned. I wish you had talked a little bit more about how you personally interpreted the painting and what feelings were brought up when you look at the painting. You analyzed the painting with a great objective standpoint. 

Frida Kahlo

Frida Kahlo was an amazing woman and a very talented Mexican painter. Her main work is composed of self portraits but it is her other works of art that are truly astonishing. They capture the entirety of human emotion on a canvas. I have chosen a painting titled Diego and Frida (1929-1944). 

In the painting we see a head composed of two sides of different faces. The left side is Frida's husband Diego Rivera's face and the right side is Frida's face. Underneath their combined neck is some type of pouch/sac that has veins branching off from it - almost like a tree. In the upper right hand corner we see a moon (that has a face), and underneath that there is the sun, and then almost directly underneath the head, there is a conch shell and a what looks like a scallop shell. The background of the painting is a deep crimson red. 


My first impression of this painting was that a kind of weirded-out feeling - I mean, come on - the head has two halves of different faces! But as I looked and studied the painting in more detail I could truly appreciate what Kahlo was trying to portray. There are two halves to the face to symbolize the union that Diego and Frida shared, when you love someone that much you truly are half of their whole. Frida continues with a dichotomy of relationships in the painting to express the companionship and whole-ness that she feels with Diego. The painting includes the moon and the sun - equal and opposite pairs but both need each other. At the bottom of the painting there are two separate sea shells which are touching, showing their partnership and love for each other. 


I love everything about this painting and the more Kahlo art that I research, the more I like it. Kahlo seems like an amazing artist and I am sad that I missed her time and impact in the art world.

Works Cited

Kahlo, Frida. Diego and Frida 1929-1944. 1944. Private Institution. Ocean's Bridge. Web. 9 September 2010

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Lauren Spencer:
I loved your post last week about robots. You took all of the information necessary and laid it out precisely. You explained Minsky very well without direct quotation and with intriguing voice. Explaining all the points of the argument before telling us your opinion allowed the reader to decide what they thought - it allowed time for personal analysis before you injected your opinion and views in to it. I really enjoy that aspect of all your posts - they are very clear and never pushy or persuasive. I look forward to reading more posts from you throughout the semester. I love your organization and clarity.

Jacqueline Pridgett:
You just have this awesome spunk that shines through in your writing that I really envy. Your ideas are precise and to the point but the way you present them does not sound like you're rushing or anything like that. The voice in your writing is phenomenal. I can not wait to see your writing during the rest of the semester - it seems to just be getting better and better!

Tasha Cerimeli:
I know we're supposed to commenting on 8/31 and 9/2 blogs but your most recent post is just astonishing. It was super easy to read and if I hadn't done the readings on this weeks assignment - I still would understand your essay because you have explained Wright's essay so clearly. All of your posts are just so engaging to read and really draw me in as a reader, your transitions keep me informed and tie the entirety of the posts together. This is corny to say but truly, "keep up the good work"!

Can Machines Think?

Robert Wright becomes alarmingly passionate on his opinion of computers and their ability to think. Wright wrote an essay titled "Can Machines Think? Maybe So, As Deep Blue's Chess Prowess Suggests". Wright's main thesis or argument is whether machines are capable of thinking. The tone of his essay suggests that Wright believes computer can think but the observations and examples that he gives suggests otherwise. Before answering the main question, Wright must define what he would define at "thinking" for a computer. Wright does not explicitly say what he would consider thinking in reference to computers but he does give specific experiments in which computers can perform mathematical equations quickly and efficiently. And a different example where an IBM computer, Deep Blue, and Garry Kasparov competed in a chess match. At the end of Wright's essay it was still unclear as to what he truly believe computers were capable of.

Although computers are continuing to advance and technology is growing exponentially every day, I do not believe that computers will ever be capable of "thinking". Sure computers may be able to do extensive math equations and even recognize speech but will they be able to analyze that speech for stress or anxiety? No, that is a human trait and I don't think we will ever be able to teach a computer how to do that. Computers will never be able to make "fight or flight" decisions, they won't be able to decide where to go for dinner, and they won't be able to write essays about consciousness. Wright brought up the example of the Turing test where interrogators must decide and choose whether they were communicating with a human or a computer keyboard. In theory this test would be a good experiment of the thinking capabilities of computers but the interrogators interpretations are entirely subjective - and if that is the case, no thinking power is being measured, only the thinking of the interrogator.

Computers will never be able to feel emotions like anger, jealousy, joy and love - this important factor is the exact reason why computers will never be able to think independently. How do we teach a machine these feelings? And if that were possible, how then do we we teach the computer to use those feelings to think and make judgments? Until these questions are answered, computers will remain lifeless machines and will be incapable of higher cognitive functioning skills.

Can computers outsmart humans?

The technology of computers is growing exponentially and faster than anyone could have ever imagined. This burst of advanced technology has spurred the idea that one day computers may "take over" and become smarter than humans. Minsky believes that computers will be smarter than humans, no matter how advanced we are right now. I do not agree - I know that the human brain is one of the most evolved and mysterious parts of being a human and I believe that a computer will never be able to compete with that. Humans created the computer as a machine to help us with processes, store information, and connect with other human beings - computers cannot evolve like humans. Yes, we can build them to be more efficient but that is the exact point, WE are building them, it is not the other way around.

There are many arguments about why computers are so smart; they can recognize and understand semantics, they have an almost infinite memory, etc. I believe that some of these points can actually be used as a counter-argument. Having such a vast memory capacity causes computers to store information that is completely irrelevant to their survival. Humans have the ability to decide what is and what it not needed, we can decide which memories, emotions, and information to keep and to "delete". I believe that this fact alone shows that computers can never outsmart humans.

Computers have changed drastically and will continue to get bigger and better but I feel that they will never be able to compete in the same categories as humans. Computers cannot reproduce, they cannot hunt and provide for themselves, they cannot survive for a specific amount of time without the maintenance of humans. The idea of computers being able to "outsmart" humans is intriguing as a movie or book plot but not as a valid theory.