Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 13:11:37 -0500 From: Rahul Mahajan <rahul-AT-hagar.ph.utexas.edu> Subject: Sociobiology Sociobiology is certainly a legitimate field for intellectual endeavor. It's funny to see how the reaction against the racism and general odium of the genetic determinists has led to absurdly relativist positions -- a friend of mine believes that people do not differ at all in innate intelligence (call it inborn capacity to acquire intelligence, if you will). On the other hand, however, even the more sober and serious evaluators of the field ten to overestimate what one can meaningfully say about the evolution of complex behaviors. For example, there is the kin selection argument for the devlopment of altruism, which I believe has been alluded to earlier (as J.B.S. Haldane put it, "I am ready at any time to die for two siblings or eight cousins."). This is all fine and dandy, but "adaptationist Just-so Stories" (as Stephen Gould calls them) can be spun to explain just about anything. Without any clear idea of a material substrate for this process, what we have is at best tenuous speculation, at worst not even yet part of the province of science. It's a lot harder to identify a genes for altruism or any complex behavior than it is for, say, blue eyes. Similar to this is the concept of group selection, which some invoke to explain the advent of social groupings, tendency to cooperate, etc. I believe this has some bearing on the earlier-discussed subject of people's propensities to identify with group interests rather than individual ones. Again, I believe, the current state of scientific understanding can shed no light on this question, but can only offer vague speculation. Rahul Mahajan Swadesh M. Mahajan: Ph. 512-471-4376, FAX 512-471-6715, Mahajan-AT-hagar.ph.utexas.edu --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005