Difference between revisions of "JAN 27"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==3: JAN 27== ===Assigned=== :*RQ1: Reading Quiz #1 :*Sapolsky, Robert. Chapter 16: Biology, the Criminal Justice System, and (Oh, Why Not?) Free Will (580-613) :*Henrich,...")
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==3: JAN 27==
+
==6: JAN 27==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:*RQ1: Reading Quiz #1
+
:*Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 328-387 (59).  For this class read only pages 354-374. 
−
:*Sapolsky, Robert. Chapter 16: Biology, the Criminal Justice System, and (Oh, Why Not?) Free Will (580-613)
 
  
−
:*Henrich, Joseph, "Hell, Free Will, and Moral Universalism" from ''The WEIRDEST People on Earth'' p. 146-148, (2)
+
===In-class===
  
−
===Reading Quiz===
+
:*More rubric training
 +
:*In class discussion of group selection
  
−
:*Please take this quiz.  You may take your time with the questions, but you are meant to work from memory for this quiz. '''Do not''' try to look things up or "speed read" to find answers. This will delay the class, reduce the fairness of the grading, and, of course, deny you the information the quiz is intended to provide.
+
===Some lecture notes on Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 354-374===
−
:*Link:
 
  
−
===Sapolsky, Chapter 16: Biology, the Criminal Justice System, and (Oh, Why Not?) Free Will===
+
:*See previous class for reading notes on this chapter
  
−
====Tear ducts and guilty animals====
+
:*'''How can cooperation get started and become stable?''' 353-
 +
::*In other words, how does "tit for tat" survive among defectors? Coalitions, green beard effects.
 +
::*Sometimes natural event cut a group off.  Inbreeding promotes stronger kin bonds. That group may outperform others once they out migrate.  (Give example from Henrich of Inuits with meat sharing behaviors.  A better "cooperative package".) 
 +
::*Effects of ind. selection, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism:
 +
:::*Tournament vs. Pair bonding  - lots of traits and behaviors follow from sexual dimorphism.  This also happens in degrees.
 +
:::*Parent-Offspring competition - in spite of kin selection, there are some "zero sum" situations bt parents and offspring.  parent-offspring weaning conflict and mother-fetus conflict. Over insulin. Dad even has a vote through paternal "imprinted genes," which promote fetal growth at expense of mom.  (Intersexual Genetic Conflict)
  
−
:*Discusses professional interaction between biologists and legal scholars that may have started “neurolaw”.   
+
:*Multilevel Selection MLS
 +
::*Remember the "bad" group selection from the beginning of the chapter?  Group selection returns in the last few decades.  (Tell story of visits with Bio prof friends over the years.)
 +
::*Genotypic and Phenotypic levels of explanation - unibrows.
 +
::*Organism (expressed individual) is a vehicle of the genome, but the genome has alot to say about how the organism turns out.  .
 +
::*Big debate in Biology. Three positions: 1. Dawkins took the "selfish gene" view that the best level of explanation is individual genes. 2. Others say the genome - "a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg" (It's the whole genome travelling through evolutionary "space".); finally, 3. Others like Gould take the phenotype.  After all, it's visible to the world.  Selection could operate on a single phenotypic trait or the whole individual.  Dawkins cake metaphor. 362.  (So that's really four levels of selection.)
 +
::*'''Four levels and counting'''. 
 +
:::*Fifth level: neo-group selection - the idea that some heritable traits are maladaptive for the individual, but increase the group's fitness (note difference from the bad old group selection).
 +
::::*Examples:
 +
:::::*Encouraging patriotism might lead you to enlist, taking a fitness risk that we benefit from.
 +
:::::*Jailing someone for their reproductive life is a serious fitness hit, but we're better off with murderers locked up.
 +
:::::*
  
−
:*Radical claim: Current criminal justice system needs to be replaced.  (Not talking about policing, right?)
+
::*Neo-group selection happens when groups impose fitness costs or benefits on members or sub-groups.
 +
:::*Postive (fitness benefits): zags helping zags, .   
 +
:::*Negative for some, positive for others(fitness costs): Slavery, racism, class bias, criminal punishment, patriotism, heroism, priests.
  
−
:*Things outside his focus: science in courtroom, min IQ for death sentence, cognitive bias in jurors, cognitive privacy.
+
:*Some scientists agree that neo-group selection can occur, but think it's rare. Sapolsky points out that it is not rare in humans, due to Green Beard effects.
  
−
:*583: historic example of scientific evidence disrupting criteria for guilt in witches trials, mid-16th century.  Older women might not be able to cry.
+
:*Remember "Green Beard" effects from p. 341 -- a thought experiment in extending/recognizing kin.  With neo-group, we go further, and hypothesize that we can form groups around almost anything (sport teams in an imaginary baseball league).  Human mind does not limit partiality or commitment to kin or even social group.  
  
−
====Three Perspectives====
+
:*Where do we fit in? AND US?
−
 
+
::*We're bit of chimp and a bit of bonobo.  Men 10% larger, 20% heavier than women.  Slight dimorphism. Not quite pair-bonding, not quite tournament
−
:*Takes a middle position between believing we are always free and never free.
+
::*'''US and Individual Selection''': Example of divorce: natural experiment when cultural taboos are lifted.  Note that increased divorce rates are confined to the same percentage of population.  Lift culture and you get to see who the "less pair-bonding" people are! Likewise with historically powerful (and not very romantic) rulers.  Point: with absolute power, tyrants often adopt extreme reproductive behaviors with many hundreds of women, if possible.
−
 
+
::*'''US and Kin selection''': Still very powerful, most feuds are clan based, but we can go to war against kin, and we give to strangers. We can be disgusted by people who betray their families: Story of Pavlik Morozov, 368.  368: study about preferring dog to x, y, z.  vmPFC involved.   
−
::*no one now disputes that we sometimes are not free (epilepsy example).  Yet medieval europe tried animals for guilt.  (Sounds weirder than it is.  Just imagine it's about the act, not criminal intent.)
+
::*Why do humans deviate from kin selection so much.  Biologists also want to find '''mechanisms'''.  Animals recognize kin by MHC or imprinted genes.  We do it cognitively. Much more flexibility.
−
 
 
−
====Drawing Lines in the Sand 586====
 
−
 
 
−
:*endorses a broad compatibilism and the idea of “moral failure”.  He develops the competing concept, “Mitigated free will,” read at 587-588.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Ultimately, Sapolsky will try to show that this view doesn’t hold up, in part because it depends up arbitrary use of a “homonculus” to explain things. But he's still a compatibilist on free will.
 
−
 
 
−
:*1842: M’Naghten.  Rule at 587. Mentally ill murderer.  Many objected to his not being found guilty.  John Hinckley.
 
−
 
 
−
:*"mitigated free will" homonculus view: we all more or less think this way and then the problem of responsibility comes down to figuring out what to expect from the humonculus.  What is it capable of or should have been capable of.
 
−
 
 
−
====Age, Maturity of Groups, Maturity of Individuals====
 
−
 
 
−
:*2005 case Roper v. Simmons.  Age limit of 18 on executions and life terms.  Follow debates on this. 590.  Note, in particular, O'Connor and Scalia's dissenting argument.  (Note also, that the need to draw these lines at all follows from the commitment to "mitigated free will".) 
 
−
 
 
−
:*2010 and 2012 cases on rehab for juvies. '''age related bounds on free will''' (in the justice system).
 
−
 
 
−
:*”grossly impaired rationality”.  Neurolaw critic Stephen Morse concedes that destruction of deliberative centers in frontal cortex defeats MR.  Especially relevant to the high correlation bt violent offenders and physical child abuse. (Horrible.)
 
−
 
 
−
:*Gazzaniga’s view: responsibility compatible with lack of free will.  Responsibility is a social level concern.  Time course of decision making.  (Sapolsky has trouble with this, but it's really the first interpretation and that's just "illusionism" for philosophers of MR.)
 
−
 
 
−
::*disputes about the maturity of adolescents: APA has spoken both ways in court: not mature enough for criminal resp., but mature enough to make an abortion decision.  But Sapolsky cites Steinberg: aborition decisions and decisions to shoot occur on different time scales.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Causation and Compulsion  -- not everything that causes us to act is a compulsion, but for some, it is.
 
−
 
 
−
::*works through example of schizophrenic hearing voices.  Not all cases would be compulsion.  "If your friend suggests that you mug someone, the law expects you to resist, even if it's an imaginary friend in your head." “thus in this view even a sensible homunculus can lose it and agree to virtually anything, just to get the hellhounds and trombones to stop.” 593
 
−
 
 
−
:*Starting a behavior vs. halting it. ("free won't")
 
−
::*Libet experiment, 1980s, EEG disclosure of “readiness potential” — activity measured before conscious awareness of will. .5 second delay might just be artifact of experiment design.  Time it takes to interpret the clock.  Libet says maybe the lag time is the time you have to veto the action your body is preparing you for (“free won’t”)
 
−
 
 
−
::*Sapolsky’s view is that these debates reflect a consensus about the interaction of biology and free will, whatever that is. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*”You must be smart” vs. “You must have worked so hard” - research of Carol Dweck, 90s, saying that a kid worked hard to get a result increases motivation. 
 
−
 
 
−
::*596: we tend to assign aptitude to biology and effort and resisting impulse to free will.  Sapolsky seems very skeptical that we can justify assigning character (impulse control anyway) to non-biological factors (fairy dust).  "Of all the stances of mitigated free will, the one that assigns aptitude to biology and effort to free will, or impulse to biology and resisting it to free will, is the most permeating and destructive." 598. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*some evidence that pedophilia is not freely chosen or easily resisted. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*chart showing how we divide things between biology and “homoncular grit”. — Long list of ways out biology influence the items on the right. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*Conclusions: “worked hard/must be smart” are equally grounded in our physical nature. 
 
−
 
 
−
====But does anything useful actually come of this?====
 
−
 
 
−
:*Grounds for skepticism about using neuroscience in the courtroom:  Stephen Morse.  Neurolaw sceptic, ok with M’naugton rule and diminished capacity, but thinks cases are rare.  Reviews valid criticisms he makes: 1. Juries might overvalue neuroscience images, 2. Descriptive vs. Normative.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Morse supports a strong distinction between causation and compulsion.  Causation is not itself an excuse.  But Sapolsky argues that this still involves walling off a “homonculus” and that’s not plausible. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*Acknowledges an apparent problem.  Neuroscience typically can’t predict individual behavior very much.  Fictional exchange with prosecutor.  600
 
−
 
 
−
:*Explaining lots and Predicting Little
 
−
 
 
−
:*But is the lack of predictive power a problem in the argument?  S. works through some cases in which probability of prediction decreases, but it's still biology.  Claim: it's not biology vs. non-biology, '''but qualitatively different aspects of our biology'''.  601
 
−
 
 
−
:*602: Important methodological point:  There's no less biology in the leg fracture vs. the other disorders, but level of biological explanation is different.  Leg fractures are less connected to culture. Behavior is multifactorial and heavily cultural.  (Oh god, another Henrich digression.  Free will has a history.) Example: how much does biology predict depression?  Factors are diverse biological mechanisms, including cultural factors. (But, point is, someone can be disable by depression, just like the leg fracture.)
 
−
 
 
−
:*Marvin Minsky, “Free will: internal forces I do not understand”. Sapolsky adds “yet”.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Neat charts showing historic trend to connect social behavior and biology in research journals. 604-605.
 
−
 
 
−
====How They will know us (A view from history given the trends.)====
 
−
 
 
−
:*If you still believe in mitigated free will:
 
−
 
 
−
::*case of Dramer and Springer and the spiritual explanation for epilepsy. Biblical version with Jesus. 
 
−
 
 
−
::*Sapolsky imagines an Inquisitor (witch burner).  Must be puzzled occasionally by fact pattern. Mom has epilepsy. 
 
−
 
 
−
::*growth of knowledge argument 607-608.  read list.  Most likely option is that our kids will look at us as idiots about moral responsibility and culpability.
 
−
 
 
−
:*608: practical outcomes.  Not about letting violent criminals free.  On the biological view, punishment can’t be an end in itself (restoring balance). Retributive punishment is an end in itself.   
 
−
 
 
−
:*mentions Josh Greene and Cohen's article on Neuroscience and the law (In your links.) Specifically (with respect, Sapolsky misses this one), the make the point that neuroscience might not change the law so much as change our intuitions about how to view people who screw up.)
 
−
 
 
−
:*'''Culpability judgements vs. Punishment judgements''': Brain imaging suggests culpability judgements activate the cool and cognitive dlPFC, but punishment judements activate more emotional vmPFC.  “A frothy limbic state”. Makes sense that punishment is costly.  But we need to overcome our attachment to punishment.  It is involved in a lot of unjustified suffering.  "Punishment that feels just feels good." (Recount Milan incident 2018.)
 
−
 
 
−
:*Recaps the transition we've made with epilepsy 610. Very nice point on 611 about the likely moral seriousness of 15th prosecutors of epilepsy.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Car free will.  A kind of reductio argument.  Car free will means "forces I don't understand yet."
 
−
 
 
−
====Postscript on reassessing praise====
 
−
 
 
−
:*(always the undertreated topic in this field).  Complimenting someone's cheekbones or their ability to detect ripe fruit.  Both are biologically dialed in, but we understand the latter less well.
 
−
 
 
−
===Henrich, Joseph, "Hell, Free Will, and Moral Universalism"===
 
−
 
 
−
:*This excerpt from ''The WEIRDEST People in the World'' comes in the context of a section on "universal moralizing gods" which characterize the major world religions (though Buddhism requires some discussion).  H's theory is that this cultural innovation in religions allows societies to grow, solving the problems associated with living with so many strangers, something our evolved psychology did not really prepare us for.   
 
−
 
 
−
:*The three innovations of moralizing religions are:
 
−
::*contingent afterlife:
 
−
::*free will: encouraged follower to believe they could comply with moral code by acts of choice and will.
 
−
::*moral universalism:
 
−
 
 
−
:*The rest of the excerpt goes into evidence of the effects of each feature on social life.  The research related to free will is at top of p. 148.
 
−
 
 
−
:*What consequences, if any, does this research have for our thinking about the modern problems of free will and moral responsibility?
 
−
::*Maybe -- Cultural variants on ways of thinking about agency make real differences in social morality...
 
−
::*Maybe -- Free will has its origins in psychological adaptations that allow us to live in large societies.
 
−
::*Maybe -- The philosopher's concern with the metaphysical problem of free will is hard to reconcile with the cultural utility of a belief in free will.  (A foothold for "illusionism"?)
 
−
::*Maybe -- We have more reason now to separate what we tell our kids (You can do it if you try. Don't let other people control your decisions.  What do you want to do with your life?) from what we know (?) about the ways that agency can be compromised or broken. The first way of talking seems justified even if the reality is that our failures are often the result of forces we have marginal control over. 
 
−
::*Does this research tell us that punishment (and one modelled on hell?) is atavistic or useful in shaping our thinking and policy?
 
−
 
 
−
:*Do these lines of thought strengthen or weaken (or leave unchanged) our commitment to moral responsibility as justifying retribution?
 

Latest revision as of 21:15, 27 January 2022

6: JAN 27

Assigned

  • Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 328-387 (59). For this class read only pages 354-374.

In-class

  • More rubric training
  • In class discussion of group selection

Some lecture notes on Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior 354-374

  • See previous class for reading notes on this chapter
  • How can cooperation get started and become stable? 353-
  • In other words, how does "tit for tat" survive among defectors? Coalitions, green beard effects.
  • Sometimes natural event cut a group off. Inbreeding promotes stronger kin bonds. That group may outperform others once they out migrate. (Give example from Henrich of Inuits with meat sharing behaviors. A better "cooperative package".)
  • Effects of ind. selection, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism:
  • Tournament vs. Pair bonding - lots of traits and behaviors follow from sexual dimorphism. This also happens in degrees.
  • Parent-Offspring competition - in spite of kin selection, there are some "zero sum" situations bt parents and offspring. parent-offspring weaning conflict and mother-fetus conflict. Over insulin. Dad even has a vote through paternal "imprinted genes," which promote fetal growth at expense of mom. (Intersexual Genetic Conflict)
  • Multilevel Selection MLS
  • Remember the "bad" group selection from the beginning of the chapter? Group selection returns in the last few decades. (Tell story of visits with Bio prof friends over the years.)
  • Genotypic and Phenotypic levels of explanation - unibrows.
  • Organism (expressed individual) is a vehicle of the genome, but the genome has alot to say about how the organism turns out. .
  • Big debate in Biology. Three positions: 1. Dawkins took the "selfish gene" view that the best level of explanation is individual genes. 2. Others say the genome - "a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg" (It's the whole genome travelling through evolutionary "space".); finally, 3. Others like Gould take the phenotype. After all, it's visible to the world. Selection could operate on a single phenotypic trait or the whole individual. Dawkins cake metaphor. 362. (So that's really four levels of selection.)
  • Four levels and counting.
  • Fifth level: neo-group selection - the idea that some heritable traits are maladaptive for the individual, but increase the group's fitness (note difference from the bad old group selection).
  • Examples:
  • Encouraging patriotism might lead you to enlist, taking a fitness risk that we benefit from.
  • Jailing someone for their reproductive life is a serious fitness hit, but we're better off with murderers locked up.
  • Neo-group selection happens when groups impose fitness costs or benefits on members or sub-groups.
  • Postive (fitness benefits): zags helping zags, .
  • Negative for some, positive for others(fitness costs): Slavery, racism, class bias, criminal punishment, patriotism, heroism, priests.
  • Some scientists agree that neo-group selection can occur, but think it's rare. Sapolsky points out that it is not rare in humans, due to Green Beard effects.
  • Remember "Green Beard" effects from p. 341 -- a thought experiment in extending/recognizing kin. With neo-group, we go further, and hypothesize that we can form groups around almost anything (sport teams in an imaginary baseball league). Human mind does not limit partiality or commitment to kin or even social group.
  • Where do we fit in? AND US?
  • We're bit of chimp and a bit of bonobo. Men 10% larger, 20% heavier than women. Slight dimorphism. Not quite pair-bonding, not quite tournament
  • US and Individual Selection: Example of divorce: natural experiment when cultural taboos are lifted. Note that increased divorce rates are confined to the same percentage of population. Lift culture and you get to see who the "less pair-bonding" people are! Likewise with historically powerful (and not very romantic) rulers. Point: with absolute power, tyrants often adopt extreme reproductive behaviors with many hundreds of women, if possible.
  • US and Kin selection: Still very powerful, most feuds are clan based, but we can go to war against kin, and we give to strangers. We can be disgusted by people who betray their families: Story of Pavlik Morozov, 368. 368: study about preferring dog to x, y, z. vmPFC involved.
  • Why do humans deviate from kin selection so much. Biologists also want to find mechanisms. Animals recognize kin by MHC or imprinted genes. We do it cognitively. Much more flexibility.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=JAN_27&oldid=24885"