6 ms·

I disagree with this argument. I think another one's more salient. For a pack animal such as primal humans probably were, a certain type of moderate depression

by pwncat 17y ago

I disagree with this argument. I think another one's more salient. For a pack animal such as primal humans probably were, a certain type of moderate depression is a survival mechanism for dealing with low social status. Your appetite and libido decrease, you become inassertive, you accept mistreatment from others. Subjectively, this process and experience sucks, but lacking desire to mate with the alpha female keeps the omega male alive. Much more importantly (since nature doesn't care much about unsuccessful individuals) it's a survival mechanism for the pack; the depressive response ensures that, in extreme scarcity, the less successful individuals slink away and accept starvation, rather than challenging and potentially causing harm to the more important ones. In modern society, this reaction is completely useless and utterly maladaptive. It also has a tendency to fire in people at all levels of social status, because modern society (with its dynamic, subtle, and multileveled play of social status) is confusing to the primal mind. So a depressive response can be rightly considered an illness. Civilization expects everyone to assume the role most closely analogous to high beta/low alpha. People who have omega traits tend to be depressives; people who have too many alpha traits are sociopaths.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
aswanson 17y ago
Sounds reasonable, leading to the prime exception I take with this whole line of inquiry known as "evolutionary psychology": the lack of falsifiability of any plausible hypothesis. You can handwave pretty much any narrative that somewhat fits the data and publish.
- ShardPhoenix 17y ago
  Not only is this particular hypothesis falsifiable, it has been more or less falsified (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection). Also, it seems to me that in these kinds of discussions, a lot of these evolutionary-psychology stories are not meant to say "this is exactly why this thing evolved", but to demonstrate that there are reasons that such a thing could evolve. A lot of this kind of thinking is probably derived from arguing with anti-evolutionists who claim that such-and-such could never have evolved because it's apparently mal-adaptive.
  - aswanson 17y ago
    Not only is this particular hypothesis falsifiable, it has been more or less falsified (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection). That wikipedia link has absolutely nothing to do with the falsification of the narrative he proposed. Also, it seems to me that in these kinds of discussions, a lot of these evolutionary-psychology stories are not meant to say "this is exactly why this thing evolved", but to demonstrate that there are reasons that such a thing could evolve. I have no problems with narratives and possible explanations but if you scour the literature you will not find, on average, the qualifiers of uncertainty. I _do_ have a problem with people who take a casual glance at said literature and present their arguments with no degree of uncertainty. Just-so stories strike me as the epitome of intellectual laziness. A lot of this kind of thinking is probably derived from arguing with anti-evolutionists who claim that such-and-such could never have evolved because it's apparently mal-adaptive. I have no idea how this type of thinking came about and have no problem admitting it.
lionhearted 17y ago
> Civilization expects everyone to assume the role most closely analogous to high beta/low alpha. People who have omega traits tend to be depressives; people who have too many alpha traits are sociopaths. This is, far and away, one of the most intelligent and insightful comments I've read on Hacker News and explains a hell of a lot to me. I might quote you on this one later in an article I've got in the que to write: Is there any particular way you'd care for me to source you? I've got the permanent link and your screenname and can use that, but if you'd like it attributed differently I'd be happy to. Thanks very much for the insight, and welcome to HN. I hope you stick around, this really got the gears turning in my head.
- psranga 17y ago
  Remember that modern civilization ENABLES many people to attain high positions. So I would not consider this expectation to be totally unrealistic. There are SO many ways in which to excel and influence society in the modern world that there is room for many many many (maybe all of us) to be near the top of something or other. One example from the work world: all decent companies have a technical and management ladder so that people who are not completely aggressive can still influence strategy (e.g., Anders Hejlsberg?). And with food/clothing/shelter becoming less and and scarce as time passes, being at the "top" is going to matter less and less.
pfedor 17y ago
Much more importantly (since nature doesn't care much about unsuccessful individuals) it's a survival mechanism for the pack I am not a biologist, but according to (what I understood of) "The Selfish Gene" and the like, the natural selection takes place on the level of genes. Since the successful reproduction of a gene is usually (barring some exceptional situations mentioned in the book) tightly coupled with the fate of the individual carrying the gene, reasoning about natural selection that operates on individuals typically leads to correct conclusions. Reasoning about natural selection on packs is on the other hand typically incorrect, if it leads to conclusions different from the individuals-based selection. In your example, if you imagine two genes, one that tells the low status carrier to accept starvation, and the other that tells its carrier to fight for dear life no matter what its social status, the second gene will win and the first one will go extinct, even if from the point of view of the whole pack the first gene could be better. This is not to say that your hypothesis is invalid, as I'm sure it can be rephrased in terms of genes/individuals without losing the core message.
- danteembermage 17y ago
  IANAB either, but pack survival could have a role in gene transmission, it would just be more indirect. Suppose pack A is full of extreme non-depressives and B is depressive. Highlander style, only one male in A will survive while B can maintain a back-up stock in case accident befalls the alpha. That said I don't see why the gene expression couldn't be: if (alpha) { act like alpha } else { act depressed } individually beneficial and pack beneficial simultaneously.
- jibiki 17y ago
  Yep. Here's a really good example from EY: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism... "The mathematical conditions for group selection overcoming individual selection were too extreme to be found in Nature. Why not create them artificially, in the laboratory? Michael J. Wade proceeded to do just that, repeatedly selecting populations of insects for low numbers of adults per subpopulation. And what was the result? Did the insects restrain their breeding and live in quiet peace with enough food for all? No; the adults adapted to cannibalize eggs and larvae, especially female larvae." (Here's the actual paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/73/12/4604.pdf http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/73/12/4604.pdf )
ShardPhoenix 17y ago
Group selection has been proven not to work so you'd have to demonstrate a benefit for the depressed individual to justify it evolutionarily.
MaysonL 17y ago
The thing is, clinical [endogenous] depression strikes the successful and the unsuccessful alike - it's a biochemical imbalance, not a psychological reaction.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- tokenadult 17y ago
  it's a biochemical imbalance, not a psychological reaction To call depression a "chemical imbalance" is what physicians, compassionately, tell their patients to encourage them to take their medicines. But the doses of lithium, the best evidenced drug for depression, that are in the therapeutic range are many times higher than the natural level of lithium that occurs in any healthy untreated human being, and perilously close to the toxic dose. The current view is that depression strikes people who have a genetic vulnerability (that much would be either biochemical or structural, perhaps a different vulnerability in different patients) who also experience certain kinds of environmental stress (perhaps not always the same kinds of stress for all patients with the same underlying vulnerability). That medicines relieve depression--as some plainly do for many patients--doesn't prove that what the patients had beforehand was a lack of those medicines, or even exactly an imbalance of the brain chemicals most influenced by those medicines. The most effective treatment for depression generally appears to be a both-and of prescribed medications and evidence-based cognitive therapy.
arketyp 17y ago
Arguing by group selection is far fetched as it is almost inherently wrong in concept, and demands further explanation in gene mechanics. Even if accepting the group selection idea for the sake of argument, there are inconsistencies to what behavior one would expect to find. As the article elaborates on, depression is, crudely put, mental pain, and it comes with symptoms such as general lack of motivation. How does that fit with the over all good of the pack? Wouldn't the expected behavior be acceptance of the omega situation and great motivation to sacrifice itself for the pack (as in wolf packs where there is kinship involved)? How is an individual being gloomy and doing nothing - mental pain being inflicted - beneficial to the pack?
kingkongrevenge 17y ago
> social status Why does every arm chair discussion of evolutionary psychology veer to social hierarchy? The evidence is quite convincing that pre-agricultural humans were not so much hierarchical. Humans are not gorillas. It seems like various insecure nerds are very eager to project popularity issues. I think depression is more about simple calorie preservation. People in situations where they feel they have no control get depressed. Imagine a famine. The cheerful go-getter says "By gum, there's food out there somewhere and I'm going to find it!" He tramps out of camp on a hunt, and drops dead of starvation two days later. Our depressive fellow says "We're fucked. I'm going to lie down and wait to die." He stays still and doesn't even think much, saving calories. Then by chance a deer wanders into camp eight days later and he's saved. In this age of plentiful energy and food people seem to forget how central metabolism and energy scarcity is to evolution. The human body is mostly a machine set up to cope with highly variable energy intake. Energy efficiency and conservation should typically be the starting point when considering these issues. As recently as 100 years ago huge numbers of people in northern climes would spend most of four months of the year lying in bed in a semi-depressive state to save energy.
- aswanson 17y ago
  Why does every arm chair discussion of evolutionary psychology veer to social hierarchy? Amen. What I have been trying to articulate in so many words but somehow fell short. Think that's my main gripe -- these explanations always veer into territory ripe with any number of convenient social stories.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  Why does every arm chair discussion of evolutionary psychology veer to social hierarchy? The evidence is quite convincing that pre-agricultural humans were not so much hierarchical. Yes, and also human beings were not as constrained geographically, but could leave one hunting band to wander off to an area previously unoccupied by human beings for most of human evolutionary history.
bored 17y ago
> alpha female keeps the omega male alive. Sounds like group selection, common fallacy.

by pwncat 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

aswanson 17y ago

Sounds reasonable, leading to the prime exception I take with this whole line of inquiry known as "evolutionary psychology": the lack of falsifiability of any plausible hypothesis. You can handwave pretty much any narrative that somewhat fits the data and publish.

ShardPhoenix 17y ago
Not only is this particular hypothesis falsifiable, it has been more or less falsified (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection). Also, it seems to me that in these kinds of discussions, a lot of these evolutionary-psychology stories are not meant to say "this is exactly why this thing evolved", but to demonstrate that there are reasons that such a thing could evolve. A lot of this kind of thinking is probably derived from arguing with anti-evolutionists who claim that such-and-such could never have evolved because it's apparently mal-adaptive.
- aswanson 17y ago
  Not only is this particular hypothesis falsifiable, it has been more or less falsified (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection). That wikipedia link has absolutely nothing to do with the falsification of the narrative he proposed. Also, it seems to me that in these kinds of discussions, a lot of these evolutionary-psychology stories are not meant to say "this is exactly why this thing evolved", but to demonstrate that there are reasons that such a thing could evolve. I have no problems with narratives and possible explanations but if you scour the literature you will not find, on average, the qualifiers of uncertainty. I _do_ have a problem with people who take a casual glance at said literature and present their arguments with no degree of uncertainty. Just-so stories strike me as the epitome of intellectual laziness. A lot of this kind of thinking is probably derived from arguing with anti-evolutionists who claim that such-and-such could never have evolved because it's apparently mal-adaptive. I have no idea how this type of thinking came about and have no problem admitting it.

lionhearted 17y ago

> Civilization expects everyone to assume the role most closely analogous to high beta/low alpha. People who have omega traits tend to be depressives; people who have too many alpha traits are sociopaths. This is, far and away, one of the most intelligent and insightful comments I've read on Hacker News and explains a hell of a lot to me. I might quote you on this one later in an article I've got in the que to write: Is there any particular way you'd care for me to source you? I've got the permanent link and your screenname and can use that, but if you'd like it attributed differently I'd be happy to. Thanks very much for the insight, and welcome to HN. I hope you stick around, this really got the gears turning in my head.

psranga 17y ago
Remember that modern civilization ENABLES many people to attain high positions. So I would not consider this expectation to be totally unrealistic. There are SO many ways in which to excel and influence society in the modern world that there is room for many many many (maybe all of us) to be near the top of something or other. One example from the work world: all decent companies have a technical and management ladder so that people who are not completely aggressive can still influence strategy (e.g., Anders Hejlsberg?). And with food/clothing/shelter becoming less and and scarce as time passes, being at the "top" is going to matter less and less.

pfedor 17y ago

Much more importantly (since nature doesn't care much about unsuccessful individuals) it's a survival mechanism for the pack I am not a biologist, but according to (what I understood of) "The Selfish Gene" and the like, the natural selection takes place on the level of genes. Since the successful reproduction of a gene is usually (barring some exceptional situations mentioned in the book) tightly coupled with the fate of the individual carrying the gene, reasoning about natural selection that operates on individuals typically leads to correct conclusions. Reasoning about natural selection on packs is on the other hand typically incorrect, if it leads to conclusions different from the individuals-based selection. In your example, if you imagine two genes, one that tells the low status carrier to accept starvation, and the other that tells its carrier to fight for dear life no matter what its social status, the second gene will win and the first one will go extinct, even if from the point of view of the whole pack the first gene could be better. This is not to say that your hypothesis is invalid, as I'm sure it can be rephrased in terms of genes/individuals without losing the core message.

danteembermage 17y ago
IANAB either, but pack survival could have a role in gene transmission, it would just be more indirect. Suppose pack A is full of extreme non-depressives and B is depressive. Highlander style, only one male in A will survive while B can maintain a back-up stock in case accident befalls the alpha. That said I don't see why the gene expression couldn't be: if (alpha) { act like alpha } else { act depressed } individually beneficial and pack beneficial simultaneously.
jibiki 17y ago
Yep. Here's a really good example from EY: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism... "The mathematical conditions for group selection overcoming individual selection were too extreme to be found in Nature. Why not create them artificially, in the laboratory? Michael J. Wade proceeded to do just that, repeatedly selecting populations of insects for low numbers of adults per subpopulation. And what was the result? Did the insects restrain their breeding and live in quiet peace with enough food for all? No; the adults adapted to cannibalize eggs and larvae, especially female larvae." (Here's the actual paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/73/12/4604.pdf http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/73/12/4604.pdf )

ShardPhoenix 17y ago

Group selection has been proven not to work so you'd have to demonstrate a benefit for the depressed individual to justify it evolutionarily.

MaysonL 17y ago

The thing is, clinical [endogenous] depression strikes the successful and the unsuccessful alike - it's a biochemical imbalance, not a psychological reaction.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
tokenadult 17y ago
it's a biochemical imbalance, not a psychological reaction To call depression a "chemical imbalance" is what physicians, compassionately, tell their patients to encourage them to take their medicines. But the doses of lithium, the best evidenced drug for depression, that are in the therapeutic range are many times higher than the natural level of lithium that occurs in any healthy untreated human being, and perilously close to the toxic dose. The current view is that depression strikes people who have a genetic vulnerability (that much would be either biochemical or structural, perhaps a different vulnerability in different patients) who also experience certain kinds of environmental stress (perhaps not always the same kinds of stress for all patients with the same underlying vulnerability). That medicines relieve depression--as some plainly do for many patients--doesn't prove that what the patients had beforehand was a lack of those medicines, or even exactly an imbalance of the brain chemicals most influenced by those medicines. The most effective treatment for depression generally appears to be a both-and of prescribed medications and evidence-based cognitive therapy.

arketyp 17y ago

Arguing by group selection is far fetched as it is almost inherently wrong in concept, and demands further explanation in gene mechanics. Even if accepting the group selection idea for the sake of argument, there are inconsistencies to what behavior one would expect to find. As the article elaborates on, depression is, crudely put, mental pain, and it comes with symptoms such as general lack of motivation. How does that fit with the over all good of the pack? Wouldn't the expected behavior be acceptance of the omega situation and great motivation to sacrifice itself for the pack (as in wolf packs where there is kinship involved)? How is an individual being gloomy and doing nothing - mental pain being inflicted - beneficial to the pack?

kingkongrevenge 17y ago

> social status Why does every arm chair discussion of evolutionary psychology veer to social hierarchy? The evidence is quite convincing that pre-agricultural humans were not so much hierarchical. Humans are not gorillas. It seems like various insecure nerds are very eager to project popularity issues. I think depression is more about simple calorie preservation. People in situations where they feel they have no control get depressed. Imagine a famine. The cheerful go-getter says "By gum, there's food out there somewhere and I'm going to find it!" He tramps out of camp on a hunt, and drops dead of starvation two days later. Our depressive fellow says "We're fucked. I'm going to lie down and wait to die." He stays still and doesn't even think much, saving calories. Then by chance a deer wanders into camp eight days later and he's saved. In this age of plentiful energy and food people seem to forget how central metabolism and energy scarcity is to evolution. The human body is mostly a machine set up to cope with highly variable energy intake. Energy efficiency and conservation should typically be the starting point when considering these issues. As recently as 100 years ago huge numbers of people in northern climes would spend most of four months of the year lying in bed in a semi-depressive state to save energy.

aswanson 17y ago
Why does every arm chair discussion of evolutionary psychology veer to social hierarchy? Amen. What I have been trying to articulate in so many words but somehow fell short. Think that's my main gripe -- these explanations always veer into territory ripe with any number of convenient social stories.
tokenadult 17y ago
Why does every arm chair discussion of evolutionary psychology veer to social hierarchy? The evidence is quite convincing that pre-agricultural humans were not so much hierarchical. Yes, and also human beings were not as constrained geographically, but could leave one hunting band to wander off to an area previously unoccupied by human beings for most of human evolutionary history.

bored 17y ago

> alpha female keeps the omega male alive. Sounds like group selection, common fallacy.