Personality Cafe banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, here goes nothing. they say curiosity killed the cat. but i'm curious on what people can say about this two questions.
go on about it and don't hold anything back.

Questions to Consider:
1.
What evidence would it take to convince you that a particular behavior (for example, monogamy) is an evolutionary adaptation rather than environmentally learned?
2.
For what behaviors besides eating is there a mismatch between today’s environment and our ancestors’ environment of evolutionary adaptation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
Ok, here goes nothing. they say curiosity killed the cat. but i'm curious on what people can say about this two questions.
go on about it and don't hold anything back.

Questions to Consider:
1.
What evidence would it take to convince you that a particular behavior (for example, monogamy) is an evolutionary adaptation rather than environmentally learned?
Something learned environmentally is still an evolutionary trait. The fact that we can choose, or even prefer to be monogamous, and to have learned that from culture, is still a sign of evolutionary adaptation. How we respond to an environment is as much the product of evolution as how we manipulate the environment.

2.
For what behaviors besides eating is there a mismatch between today’s environment and our ancestors’ environment of evolutionary adaptation?
How is there a mismatch besides eating between today's environment and the original environment?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,143 Posts
Ok, here goes nothing. they say curiosity killed the cat. but i'm curious on what people can say about this two questions.
go on about it and don't hold anything back.

Questions to Consider:
1.
What evidence would it take to convince you that a particular behavior (for example, monogamy) is an evolutionary adaptation rather than environmentally learned?
2.
For what behaviors besides eating is there a mismatch between today’s environment and our ancestors’ environment of evolutionary adaptation?
1) Yes.
Seriously, something can be an adaptation while still being learned. Or are you talking about it being genetic? In that case a simple twin study will do. If there is an interaction between relatedness and enviroment, or if it only depends on relatedness of individuals what behaviour they show, it's a genetic adaptation. If it depends on an interaction of genes and enviroment, or only on enviroment, it's still an adaptation, but not genetic. Doesn't mean it isn't evolutionary. After all, people who show this adaptation still have a bigger chance to procreate, even if it isn't in their genes. Since they will probably raise their own kids, the kids will learn the behaviour too.

2) Our sensor for hydration (there's just one) is poorly calibrated. This has no effect on our health until after we already procreated. This is why many elderly people don't drink enough and die of heat stroke in summer.

We have an instinct to protect our own group that is dangerous when you mix it with weapons of mass destruction.

We can't make vitamin B12 which is fine as long as we all eat animal products, but is a pain in the ass for vegans.

We are physically incapable of empathizing with all of humanity. You can't think of everyone, which is very bad for those that we don't think of...

And so on and so forth.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,143 Posts
How is there a mismatch besides eating between today's environment and the original environment?
We have an urge to stock up fat for bad times. Which is why a lot of people are fat. Very few humans can keep a healthy weight without trying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
We have an urge to stock up fat for bad times. Which is why a lot of people are fat. Very few humans can keep a healthy weight without trying.
Define stocking up fat?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,548 Posts
1.
What evidence would it take to convince you that a particular behavior (for example, monogamy) is an evolutionary adaptation rather than environmentally learned?
That is a packed question. It depends on what you mean. But looking through an entirely genetic perspective can give you clear results. Otherwise, I dont think there can be an answer to this except for "yes" it is both.(??)

2.
For what behaviors besides eating is there a mismatch between today’s environment and our ancestors’ environment of evolutionary adaptation?
Eating isnt much of a mismatch tbh. But how far ancestors are we talking about here?
I mean if you go as far back as "eating mismatches" you get all sorts of differences.. I mean we didnt even walk like this back then.. I'm not sure if I can call it a "we" either.
There is however a huge difference between our digestive and immune systems from back then. Which causes a shit ton of differences in our behaviours regarding "health"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
I'm not sure if I can call it a "we" either.
I think for the sake of the debate, how "far back" we need to go is to all of humanity's last common ancestor. Or everyone that descended from Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,143 Posts
Define stocking up fat?
We eat a lot of fatty foods. Most of us prefer the taste of fatty foods, even if the amount of fat stocked up in the body starts to take its toll on the body. In the past, the risk of coming to harm from overeating was small, as there typically wouldn't be the chance to stay fat for extended periods. The urge to eat energy-rich foods was beneficial.

Nowadays, we have acces to plenty of energy-rich food. We still like to eat them. Many members of our species are fat for extended periods, which is detrimental to their health, and many more are struggling to keep a healthy weight. The preference for fatty foods is a problem in a modern enviroment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
We eat a lot of fatty foods. Most of us prefer the taste of fatty foods, even if the amount of fat stocked up in the body starts to take its toll on the body. In the past, the risk of coming to harm from overeating was small, as there typically wouldn't be the chance to stay fat for extended periods. The urge to eat energy-rich foods was beneficial.

Nowadays, we have acces to plenty of energy-rich food. We still like to eat them. Many members of our species are fat for extended periods, which is detrimental to their health, and many more are struggling to keep a healthy weight. The preference for fatty foods is a problem in a modern enviroment.
Fat doesn't make you fat. Overeating does -- regardless of macronutrient. And the only way you can "overeat" on fat is if you "undereat" any or one of the other two macro-nutrients -- you can't just say you're "overeating" one without taking the entire diet into account. There are no drawbacks of high fat diets. Fat may be more calorie dense than either carbs or protein, meaning you can eat less of them and still get the same amount of calories. But fat also triggers a very satiating effect in a lot of people, which makes them less hungry overal.

In fact, in all likelihood, we used to eat more fat than we do now, with the onset of argiculture, which enabled us to produce greater amounts of grain and we became less dependent solely on hunting for food. During winter, many prehistoric populations likely ate mostly diets consisting of protein and fat in the form of meat since that was more available than starches and grain and fruits.

Pinning overconsumption of calories down to a single macronutrient isn't reasonable and much data contradicts it. After you've got your protein/carb/fat bases completely covered, you can fill up the rest of your calories with any macronutrient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FourLeafCloafer

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,143 Posts
Fat doesn't make you fat. Overeating does -- regardless of macronutrient. And the only way you can "overeat" on fat is if you "undereat" any or one of the other two macro-nutrients -- you can't just say you're "overeating" one without taking the entire diet into account. There are no drawbacks of high fat diets. Fat may be more calorie dense than either carbs or protein, meaning you can eat less of them and still get the same amount of calories. But fat also triggers a very satiating effect in a lot of people, which makes them less hungry overal.

In fact, in all likelihood, we used to eat more fat than we do now, with the onset of argiculture, which enabled us to produce greater amounts of grain and we became less dependent solely on hunting for food. During winter, many prehistoric populations likely ate mostly diets consisting of protein and fat in the form of meat since that was more available than starches and grain and fruits.

Pinning overconsumption of calories down to a single macronutrient isn't reasonable and much data contradicts it. After you've got your protein/carb/fat bases completely covered, you can fill up the rest of your calories with any macronutrient.
Right. So, I agree with you on mast parts- I indeed should have said 'high calori diet' instead of 'fatty food', but my general point still agrees with yours. Obviously a higer energy diet in the past would not have been a problem because a morbidly obese person would have a harder time gathering food, unlike today in the age of electric carts.

However, the part about overeating being impossible if you get the proportions right ( if that, indeed, is what you meant) is not true. We aren't plants. Us storing nutrients doesn't depend on proportions, because we have a maximum size. While we can piss out sugar and protein to an extent, the same can't be said about fat, and we have gotten fat long before that, no matter what nutrients we ate. Anything more than we use gets stored.

We seem to agree that eating too much is an effect of a prehistoric liking of building up energy reserves for a rainy day tough. It's just that nowadays, that rainy day never arrives...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,139 Posts
Nature vs Nurture is a huge argument in academia. Good luck finding the answer yourself.

Especially without presenting a specific behavior to us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
Right. So, I agree with you on mast parts- I indeed should have said 'high calori diet' instead of 'fatty food', but my general point still agrees with yours. Obviously a higer energy diet in the past would not have been a problem because a morbidly obese person would have a harder time gathering food, unlike today in the age of electric carts.

However, the part about overeating being impossible if you get the proportions right ( if that, indeed, is what you meant) is not true. We aren't plants. Us storing nutrients doesn't depend on proportions, because we have a maximum size. While we can piss out sugar and protein to an extent, the same can't be said about fat, and we have gotten fat long before that, no matter what nutrients we ate. Anything more than we use gets stored.

We seem to agree that eating too much is an effect of a prehistoric liking of building up energy reserves for a rainy day tough. It's just that nowadays, that rainy day never arrives...
Yeah there is a bit of agreement here, but I think you're wrongfully focusing on the nature of the food. Any food can be rich in energy when eaten in large quantities. The issue that exists has nothing to do with the food itself or with qualities relating to the food itself. It's about the availability of food in general.

Basically, we're all just goldfish in a bowl with an owner who overfeeds us every day. And because we're still wired to overindulge (since in our original environment, the possibility of overindulgence is limited to only a few rare occasions), we tend to eat ourselves to "death" as it were.

On the flipside, since we have exceptional capacity for abstract reasoning compared to other animals and have a greater capacity to think multidimensionally (in time), we can reign ourselves in if we have to!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FourLeafCloafer

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
1) Evolutionary Adaption vs. environmentally learned (nature vs. nurture) is a debate that will go on forever, mainly because there is evidence that either side can use for their argument. I personally think is it symbiotic. A little of both is happening.

On a very small scale experiment, I can see this with my children (and even myself). On the nature side, when my son was less than one, he had dolls and stuffed animals, but he also had Thomas trains and cars. They were equally accessible to him and kept in the same toy box. He had zero interest in the dolls but if it had wheels he loved it. At the time he was going to an at home daycare where he was the only boy too. My girl on the other hand was drawn to anything that had eyes (dolls, stuffed animals, puppets) as soon as she could grab at toys herself. I can see the gender nature coming out. I know personally, being an ENTP woman, who is a type that is not considered a "stereotypical woman", I can feel the "nature" part of me come out now that I am a mother that I have not seen from my ENTP male friends that are fathers. Even though I was never gushy about children and decided to have kids as a conscious decision using my head not my uterus, the feeling to protect, be constantly aware of them, feed them, cloth them, keep their environment safe-like a gatherer-is extremely strong. Of course, as far as gender goes, there are many exceptions to the rules but I am not getting into that argument at the moment.

Also, I also realized that at a very early age in my children, the personality develops and there is no way to nurture that away. All you can do is figure out how to nurture the nature. With my own personality, my parents figured out early that I was not a people pleaser, did not do anything that I didn't want to do, and questioned EVERYTHING. My mom joked, she learned she had to explain why I had to do a task or I wouldn't voluntarily do it.

As far as environment, I have two examples I have used before. My cousin's husband is an ENTP. He has the typical personality traits of being an ENTP such as being good at conversation, hot and cold extroverted, quick thinking, problem solving, bluntly honest, high IQ but did not get good grades, talks like he knows a lot about everything, loves to debate, etc. However, he grew up in a horrible situation of parents who were drug addicts, mother killed herself, was often homeless, hungry, and moved around a lot. While I grew up in a generally happy, stable, household with two loving parents. His self esteem has never really developed well, so he does that typically immature ENTP thing of almost belittling other people's intelligence to make himself appear better and is way overly snarky and trolling when it is completely inappropriate.

Another example is my ISFJ best friend who I lived with for a couple years. If you were to guess who was the person who cleaned regularly, kept their room straightened and neat, cleaned the dishes and counter, and generally kept the place guest ready, you would probably guess the J. However, I was the one that did all that which I know is a result of my environment. I grew up with an ESFJ mom and INTJ dad who were almost OCD in how clean and organized they kept the house. I was a complete pig in my room at my parent's house; however, when I got my own place, I found I wanted to keep it neat and clean. My roommate on the other hand, rarely cleaned her room, left food and hair in the sink, left cabinets open, rarely cleaned the liter box (even though she had more cats). She grew up with just her messy and socially awkward dad and a hoarding grandmother.

I realize this is all small scale and there are larger social and evolutionary things going on in the big picture, but I really think that it is not one or the other but both.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top