“The Social Leap” (2018) é um livro de divulgação científica sobre psicologia evolucionária, escrito por William von Hippel, professor da Universidade de Queensland, Australia, reconhecido especialista da área. Enquanto livro de divulgação serve de introdução à área, trazendo pouco de novo a quem estuda ou segue o domínio. Talvez a parte mais interessante, ou com alguma novidade, introduzida pelo trabalho do próprio Von Hippel, seja o último terço do livro dedicado à discussão da psicologia evolucionária que suporta o sentimento humano de felicidade.
A psicologia evolucionária é uma abordagem teórica ao campo da psicologia que procura identificar e explicar os fenómenos psicológicos — da emoção e cognição — a partir de uma perspetiva darwinista, ou seja, sustentada em processos de seleção natural e sexual. Confesso-me como um profundo seguidor da abordagem pelo modo como tende a oferecer maior suporte científico à teorização em psicologia, seguindo em particular os trabalhos de investigadores como John Bowlby, Paul Ekman, Simon Baron-Cohen, Steven Pinker, Paul Bloom, Michael Tomasello ou Denis Dutton. Contudo, não deixo de ter um olhar crítico perante a abordagem, uma vez que as metodologias de demonstração das teorias são limitadas, não se podendo falar em evidência empírica na maior parte das teorizações. Por outro lado, a triangulação entre biologia, antropologia e psicologia, nomeadamente por via dos recentes desenvolvimentos das neurociências têm vindo a dar suporte a muito do que se debate na área.
Exposto o domínio e os seus problemas, o trabalho aqui apresentado por Von Hippel não está livre destes. Tanto que a maior parte dos meus conflitos com esta leitura se deveram às leituras feitas por Von Hippel a partir dos dados que temos. Ou seja, muito da psicologia evolucionária assenta numa recolha de evidências laterais e construção de uma interpretação das evidências com base na evolução, como tal, é fácil cair em interpretações que podem não ser as mais corretas, desde logo porque reducionistas. Ou seja, tendo um conjunto de dados empíricos sobre uma determinada atividade e reações humanas, a forma como interpreto as mesmas dependo do enquadramento teórico de que parto, e aqui o desconhecimento de determinados quadros teóricos pode ditar leituras menos relevantes.
Alguns Problemas
Foi isto mesmo que aconteceu no capítulo dedicado à Inovação, intitulado “Homo Innovatio”. O autor usa um conjunto de dados e parte para a leitura que lhe parece mais correcta, mas que do meu ponto de vista é redutora da leitura daquilo que é a inovação humana.
“When innovation researchers ask representative samples of people whether they have modified any products at home or created anything new from scratch (such as tools, toys, sporting equipment, cars, or household equipment), about 5 percent report that they have done so in the last three years.* The percentage of innovators varies a bit by country, but never cracks 10 percent. For such an innovative species, one in ten or twenty seems awfully low. Yet, when I reflect on my own life, I can’t recall ever inventing anything. I have a few inventive friends, but I’d be surprised if 5 percent of them have ever invented anything either, let alone in the last three years.”
Não podemos contabilizar como inovação apenas criação físicas, apesar de ser isso que o regime de Patentes privilegia. Um ser humano que escreve um livro, uma canção ou pinta uma tela está num processo de inovação, não de consumo. O seu modo de abordar o mundo é expressivo, atuando para alterar a realidade que o rodeia, e isso é aquilo que importa do ponto de vista cognitivo. Não aquilo que podemos ou não considerar como patentes.
“Yet, across all these generations of travelers, no one thought to put wheels on suitcases until 1970, and they didn’t catch on until the modern version of a wheeled suitcase with a retractable handle appeared in 1987.* This failure to attach wheels to suitcases was all the more remarkable given that once people lugged their nonwheeled suitcases to the airport, they then paid cold, hard cash to a porter who plunked their nonwheeled suitcases on his cart and easily wheeled a whole family’s worth of baggage the last fifty yards to the ticket counter”
Depois, usa este exemplo das rodas nas malas que é muito fraco, já que não está a falar de inovação, mas de sucesso de uma inovação, que são duas coisas completamente diferentes. Existem registos de colocação de rodas em malas anteriores a 1970, mas estes são os registos que temos. Dos que não temos, devem existir muitos mais, já que é assim que funciona a criatividade e inovação, nada se constrói do zero, num momento divino de inspiração, mas tudo funciona como aglomerado de ideias que se vão elevando até chegar ao produto de sucesso.
Outro ponto fraco do livro é o modo como trabalha o género — os homens gostam de coisas, as mulheres de pessoas, os homens gostam de sistemas, as mulheres de relações. Vindo de alguém que trabalha Psicologia Social, é mau escrever isto em 2018. Mesmo frisando várias vezes que não é o modo correto de ler os géneros, mas que o faz porque dá jeito!!!! Facilita? Não, não facilita, porque se ajuda a passar a sua mensagem, acaba a contribuir para a manutenção dos estereótipos que marcam milhões de pessoas que não se reveem em nada disto.
É profundamente ridículo tentar catalogar gostos, preferências, desejos, sentires por género nos dias de hoje. Repare-se que não estou aqui a defender qualquer leitura feminista, porque desse lado também se cometem muitos destes erros. Quando as feministas qualificam todos os homens com rótulos de mansplaining, manspreading ou manterrupting estão a fazer o mesmo, a catalogar humanos em função de um mero sexo, quando esse sexo nada diz sobre a sua psicologia. Tudo isto acontece por causa de uma simples curva de Bell, na qual podemos identificar que 50%+1 de homens tende a fazer A, ou 50%+1 de mulheres, tende a fazer B. No meio de tudo isto, ficam os 49% de homens e de mulheres que nada têm que ver com a questão, e acaba sendo rotulados de anormais.
O contributo de Von Hippel: Seleção Natural e Felicidade
“this capacity to travel in time mentally and make complex plans for the future has given us an enormous selective advantage. Unfortunately, that advantage comes at a cost, given that the time we spend living in the future distracts us from the present. As a consequence, “people often fail to appreciate the pleasures (or demands) of the moment because they pay so little attention to the here and now.”
“Most meditation practices teach people to live in the moment. This is a laudable goal, but it’s incredibly difficult to achieve because it’s at odds with an evolved skill that has served us so well over the last million-plus years. We have a great deal of difficulty shutting down thoughts of the future unless the demands or pleasures of the moment are so substantial that they drag us back to the here and now. (..) My dogs, in contrast, show no signs of this inner struggle. They live in the moment because they are incapable of casting their minds forward. Every treat I give them is devoured with gusto, regardless of whether it means we just finished dinner or are off to the vet.”
Pergunta: Why Aren’t We Always Happy?
“As hard as it is to believe, lottery winners are usually no happier than they were before they won, and a fair few of them are a lot less happy. Not the day after they win—that’s a pretty good day—but by a year or two later, most people have adapted to their new normal, and their happiness has returned to where it was before they drew the winning ticket."
“The sad truth is that all of us have dreams, but even when our dreams come true, we rarely end up happier than we were before. New successes bring new challenges. The German folk saying Vorfreude ist die schönste Freude (“Anticipated joy is the greatest joy”) is much more accurate than Disney’s “happily ever after.”
“Why did evolution play this dirty trick on us, giving us dreams of achievements that will provide lifelong happiness but then failing to deliver the emotional goods when we achieve our goals?"
A resposta de Von Hippel
"evolution doesn’t care if we’re happy, so long as we’re reproductively successful. Happiness is a tool that evolution uses to incentivize us to do what is in our genes’ best interest. If we were capable of experiencing lasting happiness, evolution would lose one of its best tools.”
“Really happy people are rarely high achievers because they simply don’t need to be. As Ted Turner put it, “You’ll hardly ever find a super-achiever anywhere who isn’t motivated at least partially by a sense of insecurity (…) the earnings of the very happy folks on the far right look a lot like those of the unhappy ones. Some joy is clearly good for success in life, but too much happiness is a financial disaster. This is why evolution designed us to be reasonably happy, with occasional moments of giddiness that soon fade as we return to our individual baseline level of happiness. Numerous self-help professionals would have us believe that attaining maximal or permanent happiness should be our goal, but an evolutionary perspective clarifies that such a goal is neither achievable nor desirable.”
Estudos encontrados ao longo do livro
Motherhood and Protection
“Mothers were incapable of detecting which poo came from which baby, but they found the smell of the other babies’ poo more disgusting than that of their own baby. Even though mothers were unable to identify their baby’s poo, at an unconscious level their behavioral immune system pushed them away from the feces with a higher level of unfamiliar pathogens.”
“Experiments such as these point to the exquisite sensitivity of the behavioral immune system, and our evolved capacity to avoid germs that are most likely to make us sick. We see additional evidence for these processes in the geographic distribution of languages, religions, and ethnocentrism. As we move from the poles to the equator, the number of languages and religions per region increases, and people become more xenophobic. These effects may seem to be unrelated, but all three processes serve to keep groups apart. When you don’t speak the same language, when you don’t share a religion, and when you tend to dislike members of other groups, you’re much less likely to intermingle with them.”
Grandmothers and Menopause
“How did evolution create grandmothers? By preventing women from producing more children of their own while they still had plenty of life in them, evolution gave them the opportunity to focus on their grandchildren rather than their children.* This is why human females evolved menopause.”
Dopamine and Status
“With regard to status, research on monkeys demonstrates that when they rise to the top of the status hierarchy, there is an increase in the dopamine (evolution’s pleasure drug) sensitivity in their brains. As a result of this increased dopamine sensitivity, monkeys at the top of the heap no longer enjoy cocaine (a drug that hijacks the dopamine system). When offered cocaine versus salt water, these top monkeys show no preference between them. In contrast, monkeys at the bottom of the status hierarchy have low dopamine sensitivity and become avid coke users. Data such as these confirm the common wisdom that high status makes us happy and low status makes us sad.”
“With regard to money, once people get out of poverty, the relationship between wealth and happiness is not as strong as you might think. Much more important, if all of society rises in wealth at the same time, increases in wealth beyond poverty provide no increase in happiness.”
“These data suggest that my home cinema, granite countertops, and convertible don’t actually make me any happier unless I have them and you don’t. In other words, I want these things only to put myself above others. Moreover, whether I know it or not, the reason I want to rise to the top of the heap is because that gives me a better chance of getting the partner I really want. The TV, countertops, and car are just trivialities, but because I don’t know this, I spend my time coveting them, working to acquire them, and eventually becoming the disinterested owner of them.”
Risks and Skate
“we hired a beautiful research assistant and headed off to skateboard parks. In the first stage of the experiment, a male researcher approached a skateboarder and asked if he could film him making ten attempts at a trick that he was working on but hadn’t yet mastered. In the second stage of the experiment, the same skateboarder was either approached by the male experimenter or by the attractive female we had hired, who asked to film the same ten tricks. After the skateboarders completed their second round of tricks, we took a saliva sample to measure their testosterone. Just as we expected, testosterone went up in the presence of the female experimenter, and the higher the testosterone levels, the more risks the skateboarders took. As a consequence of their greater risk taking, they crashed more often but they successfully landed more tricks as well.”
“What can we infer about happiness from this conflict between survival and reproduction? The first lesson is that risk taking and other foolish things that young men do are not “pathologies,” signs of their disconnection from the modern world, or other labels often provided by social commentators. Rather, they are evolved strategies that made perfect sense for our ancestors and probably continue to make reproductive sense today.”
“The second lesson is that trying to prevent our sons, brothers, or friends from taking unnecessary risks is a bit like pissing into the wind. Removing the opportunity for young men to engage in competition and risk taking is a bad idea, and likely to lead to unpleasant blowback. Young men feel millions of years of evolutionary pressure, emanating from their testicles, pushing them toward risk and competition. For this reason, the best bet is not to eliminate risk entirely, but to replace truly dangerous risk and conflict with more benign opportunities for thrill seeking and competition. Sports in which you can’t get hurt at all are unlikely to fulfill such goals, but sports in which you won’t get hurt too badly are a great substitute.”
Happiness and Learning
“Our long period of development is consumed almost entirely by learning the means of survival used by our group -- As a consequence, evolution has ensured that learning is tightly linked to our motivational system; humans all over the world love to learn.”
“The motivational importance of curiosity is widely understood, but there are two important forms of learning (and therefore two important sources of life satisfaction) that people often fail to recognize: play and storytelling”
Happiness, Personality, and Development
As I suggest earlier in this chapter, there is more than one way to be a successful human, and hence more than one route to happiness.”
“Pitfalls of a Modern World”
“Universal adoration and fame are some of the most common dreams of people all over the world, but you need only reflect on the turbulent lives and repeated divorces of celebrities to realize how much happier you are being unknown.”
O livro está editado em Portugal. pela Vogais, como "O Salto Social. A nova ciência evolutiva sobre quem somos, de onde vimos e o que nos faz felizes".
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário