Evolution psychology

[FreakAnimalFinland]

There is pretty good and entertaining book Luonnollisesti Hullu ("naturally insane") that came out this year. Finnish science author who is frequent contributor of Tiede magazine for example. It's pretty harsh price for paperback, but also to be found just about everywhere.

It's pretty good first steps if wanting the clear and simple texts of the evolution psychology. No need to be medical student or expert in basically any field. Books does offer also chapter of explanations of words/concepts as well as extensive list for further reading, with comments.

It's a good reading for those, who would stand against medicalization of modern life, against far fetched freudian psychoanalysis. Where dysfuctions are just qualities, where fears and social behavior follows more the route created during long history of human species, instead of whether your mothers tits were big or small etc.
This book doesn't only study evolutionary psychology, but actually uses it to reflect issues of school shootings, murder, rape, sex, homosexuality, welfare, religion, society, medical industry, and so on and on. Of course in mere 150 pages, it's more like quick taster than some landmark psychology defining book.

For Finns, I can recommend this book, for the rest, I will just give quick wiki cut+paste... :)

Evolutionary psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary psychology (EP) examines psychological traits — such as memory, perception, or language — from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations, that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection. Adaptationist thinking about physiological mechanisms, such as the heart, lungs, and immune system, is common in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary psychology applies the same thinking to psychology, arguing that the mind has a modular structure similar to that of the body, with different modular adaptations serving different functions. Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.[1]
Psychological adaptations, according to EP, might include the abilities to infer others' emotions, to discern kin from non-kin, to identify and prefer healthier mates, to cooperate with others, and so on. Consistent with the theory of natural selection, evolutionary psychology sees organisms as often in conflict with others of their species, including mates and relatives. For example, mother mammals and their young offspring sometimes struggle over weaning, which benefits the mother more than the child. Evolutionary psychology emphasizes the importance of kin selection and reciprocity in allowing for prosocial traits such as altruism to evolve.[2] Like chimps and bonobos, humans have subtle and flexible social instincts, allowing them to form extended families, lifelong friendships, and political alliances.[2] In studies testing theoretical predictions, evolutionary psychologists have made modest findings on topics such as infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price and parental investment.[3]
Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations.[4] Evolved psychological adaptations (such as the ability to learn a language) interact with cultural inputs to produce specific behaviors (e.g., the specific language learned). Basic gender differences, such as greater eagerness for sex among men and greater coyness among women, are explained as adaptations that reflect the different reproductive strategies of males and females.[2][5] Evolutionary psychologists contrast their approach to what they term the "standard social science model," according to which the mind is a general-purpose cognition device shaped almost entirely by culture.[6][7]
Evolutionary psychology has its historical roots in Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.[4] Darwin's theory inspired William James's functionalist approach to psychology.[4] Along with W.D. Hamilton's (1964) seminal papers on inclusive fitness, E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology (1975) helped to establish evolutionary thinking in psychology and the other social sciences.[4] While some critics argue that evolutionary psychology hypotheses are difficult or impossible to test,[4] evolutionary psychologists assert that is not impossible[8][9] and, indeed, that many empirical studies have either generally corroborated or disconfirmed hypotheses about specific psychological adaptations.[10][11] The influence of adaptationist approaches in psychology has been steadily increasing.[2][4]

[Andrew McIntosh]

Evolutionarily we are still running around in packs hunting our dinner and bashing each other over the head with clubs. Considering the very short amount of time we as a species have been "civilised" compared to the longer (but still comparatively short amount of time) we have been in existence as homo sapiens, the situation is that we are cavemen with nuclear weapons and big words. It's something I find very strange and would be interested in knowing the reason - how can we have developed intellectually in such a short amount of time but not have evolved enough to keep up with it? Or, is our intelligence ephemeral and unimportant compared to the "true" purpose of life, simply eating, fucking and dying? I don't believe it's possible to find an objective answer to it - people love to use psychology to justify their own prejudices.

Insofar as "those, who would stand against medicalization of modern life" is concerned I'm in the middle of this -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/oct/04/featuresreviews.guardianreview3
- but would tend to agree with the reviewer that -

(...)making psychiatrists sound like dogmatists, eager to dole out tablets and unwilling to engage with patients, he ignores the fact that many are keen to provide those treatments, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, that involve talking to patients and focusing on their problems and worries.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

This book I'm referring, makes the difference within views of EP radicals that reject "everything". And those who do accept things what are clearly good and proven so.
I mean, medical treatment of scizophrenia or whatever.
With medicalization one would mean, that problem, which may not be problem in first place, is made as problem.
So what if old man doesn't have 10 hours long erection? Is this medical "cure" for "problem"? etc.

It can be said depression has a purpose. And to treat depression simply with pills, it may could be harmful to ongoing process and blur the reasons of depression.

There is a good chapter about patient / psychiatric relationship. Where the role appears to be role of... "friend". When illness is alienation of society and isolation and cure is "a friend" or "community", that role appears pretty strange.

[kettu]

It's something I find very strange and would be interested in knowing the reason - how can we have developed intellectually in such a short amount of time but not have evolved enough to keep up with it?

guns,germs and steel is a cool book on the subject. not really about keeping up with it but more on how things happened. 

ive noticed an increasing amount of mentalhealth specialists talking about these things in a way I agree. something is not a problem until it causes problems in your life. they are character/personaity traits even if you could explaing why it happens. it doesnt require thereapy or pills. also there was something in the papers about depression and its treatment, people who have taken antidepressants for over ten years etc- dont remember who wrote about it but it seemed that blindly taking pills to cope with life will chance at some point to other methods. im hoping suicide kits but its probaply going to be something gay like life coaches to help you organize ur life.

[bitewerksMTB]

Michael Savage who is a fairly extreme conservative radio host basically says the same thing concerning depression, anxiety, etc. Basically you're not going to be happy, satistfied, etc all the time.... All the people I've known who take drugs for such things, still have the fucking problems. Like going to a therapist/psycharist, they never get over the same shit. If they get over one issue, 3 more that its place.

[Andrew McIntosh]

Most people lump all kinds of negativity under "depression" without realising it's not an umbrella term for feeling a little bit unhappy sometimes. There are serious disorders of the brain that are chemical imbalances which can be rectified by chemicals. The brain is just a lump of tissue like any other bodily organ. If there's something wrong with your heart, you may need to take medicine for it - the idea is as simple as that but the practice is fraught with complications.

The definition of what depression is has changed, though, and the problems with medication is that it is very hit and miss. The "science" behind anti-depressants is still very much in infancy, although the commerce of it is very much advanced. It's hardly surprising that "well being" is now a commodity that you can buy, although not always with medication - lifestyle, holidays, consumer items, then of course the medication when none of that inevitably works.
It can take a while to find the medicine that works and others can exacerbate problems. I was on a medication that was almost instantly successful which, when I researched it, had a very low success rate among other users.
  But medication on it's own only has a certain success. I was told by my doctor that the best chances of defeating things like depression and anxiety* is a combination of medication and counselling. Either one on it's own can be successful, but in tandem there's a higher chance.
(I do think it's interesting that there's a political partisanship sometimes - Bitewerks MTB writes of "a fairly extreme conservative radio host" who basically seems to be claiming that since you'll never be happy all the time, taking medication and spending a fortune on counsellors is often a mistake. Whereas a lot of "fairly extreme" left-wing friends of mine used to simply blame society for any time they felt unhappy, which of course meant all the time. I'm not convinced that political opinions are helpful when making psychological assessments - I'm also not convinced they're a million miles away from each other).

* Anxiety is very much an evolutionary instinct that none of us would be alive if not for. The problem with a lot of people, myself included, is that it can be over-worked compared to one's actual life activities. It is a very physical thing - if you've ever felt something like a rush of coldness or tightness in the chest area (and if you haven't, why are you alive?), that's adrenaline rushing through you, preparing you for fight or flight. A constant stream of that adrenaline, many times for no real obvious reason, is anxiety. Apparently it's called "flooding" sometimes.
Fear is humanity's greatest ally and enemy. There are very good, sound, evolutionary and modern-world reasons for it. Hatred is a common reaction to fear, which is pretty much why humans are the kind of species we are. I know many people rate lust much higher than both of those, and would place fear, hate and lust as the foundation stones of human behaviour, as it where. Personally I think lust is important as a driving force but not as strong as fear - the prerogative to survive is stronger than the prerogative to reproduce.

[bitewerksMTB]

I dont' think Savage is 'right', I was just reminded of hearing him remark on depression. He's pretty funny...

Everyone I've known who take Xanax, etc., abuse their drugs which definitely does not help along with mixing them with booze & other drugs. I'm sure there are many more who take the drugs, do therapy, etc. & it helps. I just haven't heard from any of them.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Most people lump all kinds of negativity under "depression" without realising it's not an umbrella term for feeling a little bit unhappy sometimes. There are serious disorders of the brain that are chemical imbalances which can be rectified by chemicals. The brain is just a lump of tissue like any other bodily organ. If there's something wrong with your heart, you may need to take medicine for it - the idea is as simple as that but the practice is fraught with complications.

This book mentioned in the opening message doesn't oppose curing illness. As it also doesn't focus merely on medicalization. Just one area of commentary.
As it mentions the success of treating schizophrenia for example. Medicalization, meaning "the process by which human conditions and problems come to be defined and treated as medical conditions and problems", which certainly is good if we're talking of problems. Just about everybody I know, who have been on medication, have been due pretty petty issues. I guess it comes with the territory (i.e. "underground artists").
There is also talk about the definition of depression. As I recall, sadness or certain melancholy doesn't qualify. It's more of worthlessness and void of any emotion. Lack of any ambition or goal, and all that sort of things what leads into situation where person can't function or live properly. But where often this is the process in life, where reality hits in, and it should allow you to make adjustments. I guess the middle age crisis is the "disease" what demands medical care, so the youthful mania can go on.

I do think it's interesting that there's a political partisanship sometimes - Bitewerks MTB writes of "a fairly extreme conservative radio host" who basically seems to be claiming that since you'll never be happy all the time, taking medication and spending a fortune on counsellors is often a mistake. Whereas a lot of "fairly extreme" left-wing friends of mine used to simply blame society for any time they felt unhappy, which of course meant all the time. I'm not convinced that political opinions are helpful when making psychological assessments - I'm also not convinced they're a million miles away from each other).

This book I constantly mention, also takes care of the political issue. It tells the history of the branch of study, it explains how cultural marxists (hah!) attacked the theory with mere reasoning that evolution psychology would be the path towards eugenics and social darwinism. But explains how this really is not political. It tries to be objective and void of values. It takes no role of telling what's right or wrong and it doesn't say human shouldn't progress beyond the genetic determinism. But it simply seeks most logical and most clear reasons why we are what we are, to understand human behavior in its various forms. And this could be vital in moments when one wonders why do some people act like bloodhungry apes or why they have certain fears. And that there actually is very little "wrong" in them. More of gut feeling rejecting the cultural man and the industrial-standard settings on human being activated.

It also has chapter of "happiness". Which is very good one. Observes the happiness industry, and its cultural source. And reminds, how person should sometimes forget the american happiness & ego boost industry and check out for example some of the major cultures in the world. For example Russian literature. I guess that could demand topic of its own, but the perspective of russian culture towards happiness is probably very very far from the one the great beast american popular cultures bombards to most of us. I think the simples lesson in few words would be that happiness is not possible to reach, if setting goal as "being happy". It is only achieved in form of by-product while reaching bigger things.

[Andrew McIntosh]

The interesting thing about "American happiness" is that in many ways it is a beast of psychiatry. I'm assuming many people here are familiar with the documentary "Century Of The Self", which explains a great deal although there is more to be said. The commodification of "the individual" has led to all sorts of instant gratification products, "happiness" being merely one. Not only has it well and truly muddied the waters re defining actual mental problems like depression, it's a nice distraction from the fragmentation of society into some psuedo-individual - "atomisation" as I believe it's been called. I don't claim to know a great deal but it does strike me as obvious.

On a personal level, I've long thought that "happiness" is merely a by-product, but what I call "contentment" is a desirable and achievable state of mind. Not walking around thinking "oh how wonderful" (not that that is either unachievable or undesirable), but just knowing without even articulating that one is simply able. One mark of depression, I think, is a lack of that kind of basic state of mind for prolonged periods of time (like years). "Happiness" as something you can buy is something that puts me off the very idea of it, and that in itself is a trap. But a lot of people fall for it, and it's hardly surprising - the notion of some kind of ethereal "happiness" that you can buy has become the new religious ecstasy. It seems that the human brain is evolutionarily conditioned to strive for "happiness" but not always knowing what it is, even before there was an industry (it used to be the grist for the philosophical mill for millennia).

It's really hard to know what is really going on in someone's head and an outsider view can only see so much. I've known people who I can see are almost literally down in the dumps - they use their own homes as actual rubbish tips - and have tried to argue rationally that "all you have to do is clean this place up, start doing some exercise, lay off the grog", etc. It's as easy as that to diagnose, but to implement is impossible. For one thing, drugs and alcohol are addictive, and addictions physically change the brain. There are specific old-age dementias that are a result of life-time alcoholism, and I keep wondering what's going to happen when the present generation get into their eighties and nineties after a life time of serious drug abuse. Medication, whether legal or illegal, is the mark of our current world.

Sorry for rambling but these are issues I find very interesting.