sidebar: I don't understand what's ironic about Dec. 7th...

Recently there was a blog post from another dude on Order versus Chaos and embracing chaos, and I can sort of see a connection. It was Mel Schwartz and the article is here:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/a-shift-mind/200811/order-out-chao...

Anyways, the connection I see is that ideologies like feminism, religion, etc etc etc are sort of a way to impose control and order onto one's life and which desires are okay to act on and which are not, and the connection I see between what you are saying is that when we open ourselves up to our instinctual drives and stuff that we happen to want regardless of our previously chosen moral ideology or "order", we also open ourselves up to the psychological reward systems that evolution designed us to have. So, by using evolutionary psychological hypotheses as a sort of moral compass, we are embracing uncertainty or chaos insofar as we are compromising previously chosen or taught moral instructions or ideologies (again, like the ones you mentioned such as feminism and stuff).

This blog post was interesting and sure to stir up controversy and interest from the liberals, hippies and feminists.
Good work! :)

My thought after-the-fact is that the concept of happiness, and the pursuit thereof, could be considered a "lie" just like the other ideologies you mentioned such as feminism and stuff.

Insofar as evolutionary psychology concerns itself with mental processes/mechanisms that maximize Darwinian fitness, why would DNA concern ourselves with making ourselves "happy?" Perhaps DNA and our "animal sides" drive us toward a lack of contentment with what we have, always lusting for more, more women, more power, more status, (the stuff you mentioned), etc.

Therefore, assuming this were true, "happiness" would be the result of rejecting our animal side, rather than embracing it... right?

To Satoshi: That video was so beautiful. Thank you for sharing it. This article is extrememly helpful, too. Thank you.

To Ben: I think Satoshi's point is that by fighting against your instincts and thoughts and feelings, you are doing yourself a disservice. We evolved to have them to help us navigate through life and stay alive and reproduce. So often we try to run from them because they're uncomfortable or not in our particular society's list of acceptable behaviors or think up brilliant ways to deny our instincts which only bite us in the ass later. Thanks to feminists I can vote, but I'm also working an ass-load, which does NOT make me happy.

To Mr. Irony: I see the irony, too, but to me it's more because Satoshi is contradicting himself by saying one should trust their instincts (mine being to promote peace), but that hippies are trying to fight evolution. Bull crap. My survival instinct (being very uncomfortable around disharmony and wanting to fix it) is going to save all of your asses from getting nuked off the face of this earth. Having an instinct for war is pretty f'ing stupid. Our weapons are too advanced for the war-instinct to be an advantage evolutionarily speaking anymore.

But, again, Satoshi is saying that it's fine, some other life will flourish on this earth later. Maybe humans were a bad idea. Whatever. I don't care except that I'm going to do whatever I can to save all you people and you can thank me later :)

Yeah, sorry my history is sort of fuzzy...

Although just because he has a Japanese name does not necessarily mean he is culturally Japanese, it depends on where and how he was raised, and what he chooses to embrace and identify with. My name probably came from Ireland but my knowledge of Irish history is probably even worse than my knowledge of Japanese!

BTW: thank you from me too dr. Kanazawa about that video, I saw it and cried and I added the author's blog to my google chrome bookmark bar...

YG: I understand that Dr. Kanazawa is saying that from an evolutionary psychology point of view we are probably happiest doing the things that maximize our survival and sexual fitness, but my point (in my post script) is that Kanazawa may be confusing maximizing one's evolutionary fitness with maximizing one's happiness, if "happiness" is in actuality an artificial ideology at odds with maximizing one's fitness (notwithstanding your example that being a working woman causes you to be unhappy).

After all, a man's evolutionary/survival chances approach infinity as the number of sexual partners he has approaches infinity, but if one's "happiness" level instead of being tied to survival fitness is an ideology involving being content with what we have, then happiness would be at odds with the drive to get more. In other words, our "instincts, thoughts and feelings" are specifically designed to make us unhappy, and this unhappiness and dissatisfaction drives us to greater survival fitness whether we need it or not to achieve "happiness".

If a person can be "happy" by being content with having zero kids, and just adopting kids from cambodia (thus ensuring their own DNA dies with them), then happiness and contentment is a threat to one's Darwinian fitness, not a by-product of making ourselves as fit as possible.

"Forget what feminists, hippies, and liberals have told you in the last half century. They are all lies based on political ideology and conviction, not on science."

There's such a vast range of ideas within the mentioned groups that the statement above is absolutely ridiculous.

"Money, promotions, the corner office, social status, and political power are what make men happy (as long as they win, of course, but then dropping out is by definition a defeat)."

Are these men really happy? Can you please cite the studies correlating social status or money with happiness, contentment, and feelings of fulfillment? The picture is so much more complicated than "work makes men happy, child rearing makes women happy" and I don't feel like you really address this fact.

The primary thesis of every self-described hippie or liberal I know does not conflict with your "follow your instincts" advice. What they add to this, is that there are strong traditional social pressures that contradict the instincts of many, and that we should drop such conventions in favor of letting people make their own choices. Only the radicals seek to impose different conventions instead of dropping them.

hmm, quite original

If I remember correctly, during the whole human history, people have been using "science" to support their prejudices.

100 years ago, non-white people were scientifically inferior. I guess you would have agreed totally with that, right?

I agree with almost everything you say except for the part about men liking corner offices.

This sets up a premise in which all men must be in a rat race that only a few can win (by definition). If we as a society define happiness in such a way that only a tiny fraction of our members can achieve it, then there's something wrong with that definition. I'm also willing to bet that the definition aside, it also misses the point about what happiness is as an objective concept.

I agree that men are driven by different things. I, for example, have struggled for years to accept that I am simply driven to accomplish something. Whatever that thing may be. It took me a long time to realize that I could be happy accomplishing something that, as far as our current societal norms are concerned, is entirely useless. That being driven to accomplish doesn't mean I need to accomplish great wealth and power.

I think that, sure, power and money can render you drunk. But is that real happiness? And I'm not asking this from a hippy stand point. I think that climbing a mountain, handling a boat in a storm, playing an instrument well, or simply juggling 5 balls after hundreds of hours of practice can bring a kind of deep satisfaction that sitting in a corner office never brought me.

Kanazawa is simply advocating the nihilistic impulse that evolutionary biology implies is the natural order of things.

Happiness is whatever YOU think it is, absent sentimentality, morality, whatever. Those are just biochemical artifacts of rationalization.

You want to be altrusitic? Go ahead. Vain and spiteful? Be my guest. Whatever works for you. There is no value system except your own. So arguing over the happiness quotient of a corner office is meaningless except to the person that wants one.

If you are true Darwinian naturalist, Nietsche had in right and Kanazawa is just reminding you of that.

Dr. Kanazawa, you did a great job setting up the article talking about the value of research, but then do not mention any. Positive psychologists (i.e. Seligman, Peterson, Fredrickson, etc.) ARE research psychologists. They are describing what we have learned about what makes people happy. (For starters, see Chris Peterson's PT blog.) Is biology part of it? Sure. Have our differences been downplayed? Sure. But be careful of taking things too far in the other direction. That too can be subject to dangerous politics.

To the questioner who asked what value is happiness to our DNA. Please see Barb Fredrickson's research suporting here Broaden and Build theory: http://www.unc.edu/peplab/broaden_build.html

Just wow.

"Kill all the feminists, liberals, and hippies."

Well I guess we now know what makes Kanazawa happy. I've suspected that he held deeply seated misogynistic ideals, but I never really expected it to come out so boldly.

Despite public opinion, women and men are a part of the same species... we are all humans, homo sapiens. We are not half gorillas and have bonobos or whatever Kanazawa thinks. Our behavior is vastly more similar than different. In fact, the majority of all gender difference research says that males and females are on average the same. That there is more variation within the sexes than there is between.

Fancy that. People vary. What makes people happy depends on the person... not the genitalia. Just because women have a uterus or a vagina does not tie their happiness to childbearing and rearing, and it most certainly does not tie it to domesticity. Just because males have testosterone and a penis does not tie their happiness to cut-throat competition and being a CEO. To say that it does, to overgeneralize the entirety of the human race into two stereotypes, the Man and the Woman, is to deny and ignore the variety of experiences that make our world the way it is.

"As a scientist, I don’t care if people are happy or not. I just want to know why."

As a scientist, you're also in the business of providing evidence for your claims. Right? That makes sense, doesn't it? Otherwise, you're just a fundamentalist, not a scientist. I assume then that you have evidence for these claims about how corner offices, social status, and political power make men happy. Personal experience tells me that some men are happy with corner office, status, and political power and some aren't. Successful politicians and celebrities don't seem like the happiest group of people, but what do I know? That's just anecdotal. You have evidence, I'm sure, or else you wouldn't have posted this. (As a scientist, I mean.) So I echo an earlier request for those data from the social sciences that support your claims.

Evolutionary science has its place, but it often oversimplifies a variety of important factors when applied to modern times.

So, maybe some men are happy when they fit the standards of success listed above. What about the ones who do NOT gain happiness in those methods? Is the implication that these men are outliers or some sort of minority?

What about men who are happy spending time with their children AND enjoy success at work?

Finally, what does happiness have to do with evolution?

Either way, the author presents no evidence of his claims. In order for it to be science, you need to be able to present solid evidence, not just anecdotes about gorillas.

In spite of some of the off-color comments Satoshi makes, he is honest with what his own personal goals are. He is not here to make friends. He is a seeker of truth like most everyone else on this blog.

Judging someone for being judmental is hypocritical. Killing a killer for killing is hypocritical. Bashing someone over the head with a peace sign is hypocritical.

We need to work to understand each other and practice compassion. EMPATHY. We're all wired enough the same that we have the capacity to understand why everyone does everything they do.

FURTHERMORE... Even the radicals should be listened to. I do not believe that people are "evil". There is a reason even THEY do what they do. I'm not saying to let it go on, but maybe there's some merit to their complaints, and it too should be a wake up call. Similar to why if you have a bad feeling/crisis in your own head, you need to listen to it. EVERYTHING is a microcosm of everything else. I dig integral theory. And even terrorists are telling us that maybe we need to figure out if what they're angry about has merit. Just a suggestion.

Watch the video he mentioned and live by it. That is in fact the secret to happiness. Satoshi makes great points you just have to not let your ego be affected by his.

I'm a woman and nothing could make me unhappier than raising children, they are not for me.

in response to YG's characterization of Dr. Kanazawa as being a seeker of truth, I am going to voice my doubt on that subject.

In the words of Batman Begins, "Bruce, you might still be that cool kid I used to know on the inside. But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do, that defines you."

As far as I can tell, Dr. Kanazawa does not (or rarely) responds to the feedback left on his blog, even when that feedback is from a professional blogger colleague.

(See: Is evolutionary psychology a used car? Response to Fat Chicks get Laid More http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/lust-in-paradise/200811/is-evoluti... )

Judgment, judging others, etc. gets a bad wrap. Yes, we are, from a moral perspective, supposed to be patient and understanding and try to understand why people do what they do in order to be better able to see that sparkle of good that exists in all people. However, when deciding how to live our own lives, it is our prerogative as free-thinking human beings to make judgments about people when deciding who to be friends with, who will uplift our lives, and as Dr. Kanazawa himself says, sometimes you can judge a book by its cover.

YG, I am not sure where this defensive reverence of Dr. Kanazawa comes from, but to say he is "telling it like it is" is a direct and unsubstantiated contradiction to many thoughtful rebuttals of Dr. Kanazawa's writing that remain unrefuted. Rather, I see a pattern in Dr. Kanazawa's work of making false reductions and defining terms in a way contrary to common sense, and then totally ignoring the hornet's nest of controversy (some merely emotional and reactionary, others constituting thoughtful and valid counterpoints) that is inevitably stirred up.

It seems to me that a "seeker of truth" would at least take the time to clear up the widespread misconceptions about his work, assuming his original works had any merit to begin with.

No offense, Dr. Kanazawa, I think a lot of what you write is interesting, I just see a pattern of you not really caring if your readers are led to the truth or if they are led to whatever bizarre conclusion you want to twist the facts to support.

Of the two happiest time periods of my life, I would rate the time I had as the at-home dad for my daughter (ages 2 mos. to 6 years) was by far the more enjoyable and satisfying of the two. The fact that man has evolved has nothing to do with what satisfies the individual.
Would I like to run a day-care center? Not on your life. But I would give a body part to be able to relive those precious years.
I also like to do household repairs, drive fast (alone) win athletic pursuits and games, target shooting, all kinds of guy stuff.
But I was never bigger, stronger, happier or more of a "winner" than when I was doing call-and-response as "gaga".

What nonsense. Another kook psychologist pretending that their moronic ravings are somehow scientific. Science does not deal with feelings. Real scientists are only interested in testable theories.

Also, a real scientist would never make bombastic, obviously wrong claims like "The best thing to do is to kill all the feminists and hippies and liberals."

This is no different than saying "The best thing to do is to kill all the psychologists and sophists." -- Although my feelings tell me it would be beneficial.

You sir, are an insult to science, and to your field.

Dear SteveM:
Whether or not Kanazawa is being consistent with crazy philosophers who confuse the purpose of Darwinian theory as having anything pertinent to say about moral theory really is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is right or wrong.

If you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between:

1) a scientific theory that explains how a process of natural selection causes a species to change over time to make it better able to survive in its particular environment

and

2) a moral theory based on said theory that defines the greatest good as whatever maximizes our chances, as individual members of the species, of passing on our own DNA (while perhaps having priority #2 being ensuring our species as a whole survives),

then perhaps we should agree to disagree. On a related note, you further mischaracterize Darwinism when you say that hypothesized "instincts" determine human behavior in a way that eliminates individual choice and the validity of ideological schools of thought.

What Darwinian theory states is that, over a process spanning many generations, random variations in DNA cause individual members of the species to have differential chances of survival and reproductive success, and that these differential rates of success lead to a trend towards populations of species gradually changing to better suit their environments. While this can extend to certain tendencies of behavior and mental processes, it does not necessarily include a completely deterministic view of human choice.

To say that humans, because they are programmed with an instinctual drive to be as reproductively successful as possible are incapable of choosing otherwise is just wrong. The existence of feminism, religion, etc. and people who live by them is proof that human behavior is chosen, not entirely pre-determined.

What Kanazawa is saying is that humans have programmed instincts that, if we choose to live in accordance with, we will maximize our own happiness. That is one moral ideology that, as you can see by reading the responses, is neither uncontroversial nor well-supported. Kanazawa himself admits that it is not his field of study to theorize about what should be, only what is. You are confusing "what is", an attempt to theorize about the way in which evolution has shaped human mental processes, with some kind of moral philosophy that is too obviously correct to be argued with, which will wisp away all other vaporous and invalid moral ideologies.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose, as well as the necessary conclusions drawn therefrom, of scientific study.

thanks for the clarification, YG, I agree with what you are saying too, now that I understand it.

I don't really want to have him booted from the blog or anything, like I said, I think he writes on interesting topics and his research is interesting, I agree.

much love from me too,
Ben

you have lost me, anonymous. I did not even use the word "should" in the post you were responding to. While I am not denying the possibility that there is a valid point hiding beneath your words, I request that you explain it in greater detail.