Evolutionary adaptation towards a sense of freedom and positivity

[rousseau]

For the scientific minded there's no way around the fact that we're material beings that evolve. Every last detail about our bodies arose from conditional pressures that made us a certain way. So what I wonder is if it's possible that our brains have evolved in a way that tend to give us a greater sense of freedom and positive day-to-day emotions, or at least a fine balance between negative and positive emotions. The theory of 'a feeling of freedom' might be a bit tenuous, but I definitely think that people who tend to feel more positive would be more likely to find mates and reproduce.

I used to believe that people tended to be negative more often than they are positive as an evolutionary adaptation, but I think my own outlook on life at the time skewed my perspective. Now I'm closer to a camp that feels that, while people suffer, the lives of most people out there tend to be completely fine, most of the time, even if sub-consciously.

 

[ryan]

For the scientific minded there's no way around the fact that we're material beings that evolve. Every last detail about our bodies arose from conditional pressures that made us a certain way. So what I wonder is if it's possible that our brains have evolved in a way that tend to give us a greater sense of freedom and positive day-to-day emotions, or at least a fine balance between negative and positive emotions. The theory of 'a feeling of freedom' might be a bit tenuous, but I definitely think that people who tend to feel more positive would be more likely to find mates and reproduce.

Sure, I see no reason why negativity towards life will prevail genetically. They would either kill themselves, be uninterested in having a mate or be unattractive to a mate. And most of the time depression weakens the body physically and maybe even the willpower to survive serious injuries.

But I wouldn't give up on the idea of free will either. There are many good arguments for free will that are compatible with evolution.

 

[Emily Lake]

Seems like a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism would be a good survival adaptation. But maybe that's just because I don't trust all this "feel good" crap

 

[rousseau]

Seems like a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism would be a good survival adaptation. But maybe that's just because I don't trust all this "feel good" crap

I don't know, I feel like if you had too much skepticism you might just say fuck everything, forego children, and go make some sea-shell jewellery on the beach.

 

[skepticalbip]

Seems like a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism would be a good survival adaptation. But maybe that's just because I don't trust all this "feel good" crap

I don't know, I feel like if you had too much skepticism you might just say fuck everything, forego children, and go make some sea-shell jewellery on the beach.

And, without skepticism, your grandparents would have wandered off with that "nice stranger" that promised them candy when they were children. They wouldn't have had your parents so your non-existant parents couldn't have had children.

Moderation in all things... too much acceptance or too much skepticism is bad.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't know, I feel like if you had too much skepticism you might just say fuck everything, forego children, and go make some sea-shell jewellery on the beach.

And, without skepticism, your grandparents would have wandered off with that "nice stranger" that promised them candy when they were children. They wouldn't have had your parents so your non-existant parents couldn't have had children.

Moderation in all things... too much acceptance or too much skepticism is bad.

Without skepticism, they'd have wandered off when they were adults.
Kids wander off with strangers unless we train them not to.

Skepticism seems to be an acquired habit, not an evolutionary benefit.
Kids will believe anything until they start to figure out that Daddy is full of bullshit. The smart ones begin early to draw a connection between 'Daddy said...' and 'Then Mommy rolled her eyes and said, what did he tell you THIS time?'

 

[skepticalbip]

And, without skepticism, your grandparents would have wandered off with that "nice stranger" that promised them candy when they were children. They wouldn't have had your parents so your non-existant parents couldn't have had children.

Moderation in all things... too much acceptance or too much skepticism is bad.

Without skepticism, they'd have wandered off when they were adults.
Kids wander off with strangers unless we train them not to.

Skepticism seems to be an acquired habit, not an evolutionary benefit.

Really? You have never seen young children (too young for reasoning) afraid of strangers even though their parents are trying their best to calm them and are telling them that they are OK?

It seems to me that children are taught to trust.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Without skepticism, they'd have wandered off when they were adults.
Kids wander off with strangers unless we train them not to.

Skepticism seems to be an acquired habit, not an evolutionary benefit.

Really? You have never seen young children (too young for reasoning) afraid of strangers even though their parents are trying their best to calm them and are telling them that they are OK?

I don't think that's skepticism. If they're too young for reason, then they're not skeptical of anything.
it's just fear of the unknown, not an unwillingness to accept claims at face value.

 

[bilby]

Really? You have never seen young children (too young for reasoning) afraid of strangers even though their parents are trying their best to calm them and are telling them that they are OK?

I don't think that's skepticism. If they're too young for reason, then they're not skeptical of anything.
it's just fear of the unknown, not an unwillingness to accept claims at face value.

Paradoxically, children need to be taught to be afraid of strangers; but they are natural xenophobes. A stranger who looks enough like mum or dad is instantly trusted; a person who is introduced to them by mum or dad, but who looks different - their first bald or bearded man, for example - is terrifying, despite parental endorsement.

In my un-evidenced and purely anecdotal experience as a bearded man in a society where beards are fairly rare, babies are fascinated by my appearance; but toddlers find it terrifying - unless their father (or another person they interact with regularly) also has a beard.

One result of this is that teaching kids to be wary of strangers is often futile; the parent's idea of what constitutes a stranger is simply at odds with the child's, and so children are happy to go off with strangers who don't have the outward appearance of monsters. Few people stop to ask the children what they think a 'stranger' is; when they do, the children's descriptions are usually based on deviations in appearance from what the child considers normal, and have nothing to do with familiarity or previous meetings.

Of course, nobody is going to get government funding for a non-rhyming program to alert kids to 'Person you haven't met before danger'. Kids might understand such a program, but politicians are too naive to grasp it.

Teaching kids about 'stranger danger' is a bit pointless, unless we also teach them what a 'stranger' actually is.

 

[rousseau]

FTR, I definitely think skepticism can be beneficial to a degree, my first post about it was a joke. The trick is to be skeptical and analytical enough to lead a successful life, and not so skeptical and analytical that you turn into a raving maniac who lives under a bridge (seems to be my problem these days).

 

[bilby]

FTR, I definitely think skepticism can be beneficial to a degree, my first post about it was a joke. The trick is to be skeptical and analytical enough to lead a successful life, and not so skeptical and analytical that you turn into a raving maniac who lives under a bridge (seems to be my problem these days).

I am not at all sure that living under a bridge is safe. I am certainly not going to trust a bridge just because some engineer says it is safe. At the very least I would want to see some plans; and to test the alloys used in the construction. And I am not going to trust a metallurgist to do the testing; I want to do it myself. And another thing...

 

[PyramidHead]

For the scientific minded there's no way around the fact that we're material beings that evolve. Every last detail about our bodies arose from conditional pressures that made us a certain way. So what I wonder is if it's possible that our brains have evolved in a way that tend to give us a greater sense of freedom and positive day-to-day emotions, or at least a fine balance between negative and positive emotions. The theory of 'a feeling of freedom' might be a bit tenuous, but I definitely think that people who tend to feel more positive would be more likely to find mates and reproduce.

For the most part, I agree, especially with the bolded section. But evolution doesn't arrive at optimal solutions, just sufficient ones. Which is why I take issue with your next part:

I used to believe that people tended to be negative more often than they are positive as an evolutionary adaptation, but I think my own outlook on life at the time skewed my perspective. Now I'm closer to a camp that feels that, while people suffer, the lives of most people out there tend to be completely fine, most of the time, even if sub-consciously.

Just because we have evolved a system of "Pollyanna" tendencies that make our emotional states, on average, bearable enough to forestall thoughts of suicide before we have babies doesn't mean that our lives are therefore completely fine. In fact, I would argue that the very existence of such an elaborate mechanism is evidence that the "conditional pressures" shaping our psychological states are themselves not conducive to having a positive outlook; otherwise, there would be no need to evolve it. In other words, giving a man a hose so he can navigate a forest fire without burning to death is better than nothing, but it doesn't change the fact that he's stuck in a forest fire.

 

[rousseau]

For the most part, I agree, especially with the bolded section. But evolution doesn't arrive at optimal solutions, just sufficient ones. Which is why I take issue with your next part:

I used to believe that people tended to be negative more often than they are positive as an evolutionary adaptation, but I think my own outlook on life at the time skewed my perspective. Now I'm closer to a camp that feels that, while people suffer, the lives of most people out there tend to be completely fine, most of the time, even if sub-consciously.

Just because we have evolved a system of "Pollyanna" tendencies that make our emotional states, on average, bearable enough to forestall thoughts of suicide before we have babies doesn't mean that our lives are therefore completely fine. In fact, I would argue that the very existence of such an elaborate mechanism is evidence that the "conditional pressures" shaping our psychological states are themselves not conducive to having a positive outlook; otherwise, there would be no need to evolve it. In other words, giving a man a hose so he can navigate a forest fire without burning to death is better than nothing, but it doesn't change the fact that he's stuck in a forest fire.

Good point. I would add, though, that having evolved the biological capacity to make life bearable.. still makes it bearable, even if when we see through the illusion it's not a perfect paradise.

Lately, thinking about myself, I'm not over the top enthused about my day to day life.. I actually find it pretty weird most of the time, but despite that the number of days I've successfully survived are now over 10 000 in a row. The only alternative to that is death, which, at least to me, obviously isn't a good alternative, so it would seem that my (our) physiology does a good enough job of keeping the majority of us relatively happy. Despite the pressure that caused it, it's who and what we are.

 

[PyramidHead]

Existence is certainly bearable for the vast majority of people. It's also worth noting that we are almost incapable of rationally addressing the pros and cons of suicide, due to another evolved trait: a visceral, non-cognitive revulsion at the idea of death, prior to any thought one way or another. It's nearly impossible to extricate oneself from its grip and actually consider the matter in a neutral way. The few times that I have, nothing about death struck me as obviously worse than life. But then the reflexive survival instinct kicks back in, and I have to check myself from descending into nihilism.

It's easy to imagine why this trait would have been preferentially selected in our ancestors, along with the "sense of freedom" you mentioned earlier. We are actually pretty tightly constrained by our physiology, and blessed/cursed with an imagination that vastly outstrips our standard-issue husks.

 

[J842P]

Existence is certainly bearable for the vast majority of people. It's also worth noting that we are almost incapable of rationally addressing the pros and cons of suicide, due to another evolved trait: a visceral, non-cognitive revulsion at the idea of death, prior to any thought one way or another. It's nearly impossible to extricate oneself from its grip and actually consider the matter in a neutral way. The few times that I have, nothing about death struck me as obviously worse than life. But then the reflexive survival instinct kicks back in, and I have to check myself from descending into nihilism.

There's no reason to prefer anything over something else without some sort of visceral reaction, some sort of 'non-cognitive' hedonic calculus that sets up the axioms upon which one's reason works. Perhaps affective is a better word to use rather than hedonic.

 

[Angry Floof]

The brain spends more energy on paying attention to whatever seems to be a threat. Since we have evolved to create culture, ideology, social systems, group values, etc., it's only natural, so to speak, for these systems to embody and foster pessimistic attitudes, negative world views, and judgments of "wrong" to some degree. On the other hand, being intelligently self aware with the ability to consciously analyze and adapt, coupled with our technology and ever-growing base of knowledge, not to mention passionate curiosity, it also seems only natural, so to speak, that we have also evolved to develop and seek out positive attitudes and ideologies.

The degree to which an individual's view is colored by negativity depends on the myriad factors that come together to create that individual: family, genes, culture, diet, personality, media, interests, life history of experiences, etc.

For anyone who would muddy the waters with "positive and negative are only subjective valuations," I would give you this example of positive and negative beliefs:

"I can solve this problem."

"I can't solve this problem."

Both are ultimately just stories in our head. Either of these beliefs could be said to reflect something of truth and reality, but that both are also limited personal views, subject to distortion and subconscious bias. But the level of truth or delusion isn't even what's relevant here. It doesn't matter which one is evaluated as better than the other. What matters is: which statement, when existing as an organic belief in your subjective experience, do you think would inspire action, cultivate creative problem solving, and open your view to solutions toward your own and others' well being?

I consider it very worthwhile to understand negativity bias and strive to rewire our neural pathways by actively, consciously seeking out the positive.

IFLS posted this image this morning on facebook.

And don't forget Mr. Rogers: "When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, 'Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping."

The inclination to focus on the negative, especially when our world of communications and media focus on it so severely, means that we have to actively look for what's not a threat, what's not actually wrong with everything. Every reaction that arises in each of us is an open target for examination and restructuring. That's how you consciously adapt, as opposed to justifying whatever story has already formed in you.

 

[rousseau]

The brain spends more energy on paying attention to whatever seems to be a threat. Since we have evolved to create culture, ideology, social systems, group values, etc., it's only natural, so to speak, for these systems to embody and foster pessimistic attitudes, negative world views, and judgments of "wrong" to some degree. On the other hand, being intelligently self aware with the ability to consciously analyze and adapt, coupled with our technology and ever-growing base of knowledge, not to mention passionate curiosity, it also seems only natural, so to speak, that we have also evolved to develop and seek out positive attitudes and ideologies.

The degree to which an individual's view is colored by negativity depends on the myriad factors that come together to create that individual: family, genes, culture, diet, personality, media, interests, life history of experiences, etc.

For anyone who would muddy the waters with "positive and negative are only subjective valuations," I would give you this example of positive and negative beliefs:

"I can solve this problem."

"I can't solve this problem."

Both are ultimately just stories in our head. Either of these beliefs could be said to reflect something of truth and reality, but that both are also limited personal views, subject to distortion and subconscious bias. But the level of truth or delusion isn't even what's relevant here. It doesn't matter which one is evaluated as better than the other. What matters is: which statement, when existing as an organic belief in your subjective experience, do you think would inspire action, cultivate creative problem solving, and open your view to solutions toward your own and others' well being?

I consider it very worthwhile to understand negativity bias and strive to rewire our neural pathways by actively, consciously seeking out the positive.

IFLS posted this image this morning on facebook.

And don't forget Mr. Rogers: "When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, 'Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping."

The inclination to focus on the negative, especially when our world of communications and media focus on it so severely, means that we have to actively look for what's not a threat, what's not actually wrong with everything. Every reaction that arises in each of us is an open target for examination and restructuring. That's how you consciously adapt, as opposed to justifying whatever story has already formed in you.

You can go a layer deeper than all of the outward negativity that people express. Even if people act and express negative emotions, sub-consciously they might be completely content, which is closer to the argument that I'm making.

Consider the person who's complaining about random x thing while he sits in his warm house, is well fed, has a stable bank account, etc. It's possible for people to be negative outwardly and have all of their physiological needs met, they're just so used to having all of their base needs met that they are barely cognizant of them, but it's those base needs that are keeping them content for the most part.

I'd argue that a real lack of contentedness can only come from physical depression.

 

[rousseau]

Existence is certainly bearable for the vast majority of people. It's also worth noting that we are almost incapable of rationally addressing the pros and cons of suicide, due to another evolved trait: a visceral, non-cognitive revulsion at the idea of death, prior to any thought one way or another. It's nearly impossible to extricate oneself from its grip and actually consider the matter in a neutral way. The few times that I have, nothing about death struck me as obviously worse than life. But then the reflexive survival instinct kicks back in, and I have to check myself from descending into nihilism.

It's easy to imagine why this trait would have been preferentially selected in our ancestors, along with the "sense of freedom" you mentioned earlier. We are actually pretty tightly constrained by our physiology, and blessed/cursed with an imagination that vastly outstrips our standard-issue husks.

Revulsion at the idea of being dead or dying?

If being dead, I'd think most people are revulsed by the idea because they love being alive, it's not some type of evolutionary delusion. Their lives are satisfactory enough that they don't even need to give the concept much thought before they decide that death is not a good option.

Even for people who find life a little annoying and troublesome, the idea of ceasing to exist for all eternity and wasting your short time being alive seems like a huge mistake. I don't think it's that we've evolved to avoid our obvious desire for death, we've evolved so we're content enough that we really don't want to die.

 

[thebeave]

There have been a number of studies on happiness, and as I recall, there are a small percentage of people who seem to be eternally happy and satisfied. They laugh constantly and don't seem easily bothered. Oddly enough, scientists think these people are not normal, nor is it necessarily a positive thing or something to strive for. Its actually thought these people have a sort of mental illness.