Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:29:44 -0600 From: Lisa Rogers <EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS-AT-email.state.ut.us> Subject: reply to Rahul, part 2 I accidentally left a partial sentence in my part one, so to begin by finishing it, I invite Rahul or any other to nominate a favorite article by Gould and I'll try to fit it into my reading schedule and give a serious review - of course, I'll expect you to do the same for me, I pick the article, etc. Actually I'd prefer it if you just come up with a well-thought-out argument that you find supportable (even if it is borrowed from Gould) or a pithy question. This stuff is not easy, I think. It took me a long time to get it, and it may be overly ambitious to attempt to summarize and defend a large body of work with which many of you are probably not familiar. I didn't "get" Marxism (my version) until I quit asking avowed Marxists questions that they couldn't answer, and read some Marx for myself. But here goes: The point about "just-so" stories is that Gould uses the phrase to put down "adaptationists". There is certainly a lot of bad science done. But I want to turn it back on him, because anyone can also make up "cultural just-so" stories about how "culture made it happen". The reason that culturists cannot tell "cultural just so" stories about other species is that they claim that only humans have culture. This is usually part of a commitment to dichotomous thinking about "fundamental differences" between humans and the rest of nature. As for "political ends" please give me an example, and I can tell you if the author is even considered to be a scientist. I have found that "political implications" are often attributed where they are lacking. And even if they are obvious and obnoxious, it is still important to evaluate the merits of the argument itself. Isn't it? I don't see why Rahul distinguishes between "when does it pay one to help others?" and "how did such behavior evolve?" Aren't these flip sides of the same coin? If evolve means to increase in frequency within a population, the answer is it increased because it did pay off. I also don't get why he says that the first question only applies when comparing different species with each other. Next he implies that I must specify the detailed mechanism by which genes affect behavior in order to justify my position. I reject that idea for several reasons. I do not claim that "genes determine behavior". I do not expect that natural selection would make us like that. After all, what is a vertebrate's gray matter for? We are "designed" (if you'll forgive a metaphor) to interact with, respond to and influence any environment (especially social) in which we may find ourselves. I could go on about learning mechanisms and such. Early experience actually changes brain structure and function, and neither the brain nor the rest of the body responds randomly to circumstances! And where did we get this complex, imperfect, mysterious, wet machinery? From evolution, I think. And if it was produced by natural selection, shouldn't we expect that to show? We've got the creator's fingerprints all over us, just like all other living things. I don't think we have to know every biochemical detail of the connections from nucleus and cytoplasm and environment and the mechanisms of development in order to make a reasonable call about the bigger picture. If I have to wait until then, I may wait for ever. The general picture is already apparent to me - the brain is an adaptation, along with its capacity for culture, language, love, hate, cooperation, murder and every other thing that people can do. So, to say that "sociobiology" paints an ugly or inaccurate picture of human nature is not true. It's better to say that there is no "human nature", just "life-form nature" which is [darwinian] fitness oriented. Each individual of each species may use a different method, but the goal is the same. Humans may have more variable behavior, including social formation, than any other species. But evolution is not expected to produce an infinitely malleable organism - the reason this fancy brain and all the other gear evolves is because it is used for evolutionary ends, survival and reproduction, mainly of the individual and its immediate relatives. "Blood is thicker than water." Please note, I fully expect any batch of genetically identical people to be able to act very differently from each other, but I'm not proposing an experiment to demonstrate this. It might be considered unethical, and besides it would take too long and too much money (tongue planted firmly in cheek here.) It is also clear that at least in extreme cases, different potential abilities are related to some genes (genetic retardation). There is also massive evidence of environmental influence making huge differences in all kinds of test scores. How much difference do genes make in "IQ" scores? Probably not much difference among the vast majority with "normal", if they have normal environments. But who gives a care about the "forbidden experiment", when there is brain damage occurring due to malnutrition and due to lead poisoning, only to poor people, in the US right now! Lack of quality educational opportunities and lack of living in an environment safe and secure enough to allow one to pay attention to anything else, lack of a life that promises that a reasonable chance at "success" (of any kind) will actually result from going to school and following the rules, these are things that result in "low test scores". People who think that they will get something out of it for themselves are motivated people. That's where my view of "human nature" takes me, on the "IQ" issue for example. Lisa Rogers Rahul: Why can't we tell similar just-so stories about other species? ..... >And why do his readers not often look up the originals that he is talking>about? Well, why bother when one already knows that it is crap, because>Gould said so, especially if he just reinforces some previous prejudice>in the reader. That's a good point, but when you read one or two things and see that they're crap, it's hard to get excited about others that share the same methodology and are directed at the same political ends. >The point of "kin-selection" models, "genes for altruism" (you get the same>result if you replace the gene with learning or contingent behavior, or>whatever), the point of game theory and such is to address the question: >under what circumstances is self-sacrifice actually advantageous to the>sacrificer? or when does it pay one to help others? This is missing the biggest point. "When does it pay to help others?" is surely an interesting question to ask with regard to different social groupings involving different species. However, the salient point for all species, including human beings, is "How does such behavior evolve?" For that, an adaptationist explanation alone is simply not science. You need to posit some material basis -- obviously, not a single gene. Unfortunately, the state of the art in the science does not really permit one to answer such questions for complex behaviors or even for difficult questions about structure of organisms. .....It is>because of evolutionary theory that we can expect (not only observe or>"induct") we expect living things to behave, each one in ITS OWN INTEREST>in terms of survival and reproduction. > >If behavior is flexible, it is expected to respond to costs and benefits,>constraints and opportunities (Which does not ignore social behavior or>social environment, quite the contrary. Social status and alliance, etc.>can have enormous effects on individual Darwinian fitness for any social>animal. For humans add income, access to health care, occupation...) > >This question, how to get selfish individuals to be nice to each other,>is surely also of interest to socialists. > >Unless one just does not believe that people are like that.... Or unless one believes that people can be changed so they're not like that (at least, most of them). ... >More on why evolution usually creates individual interest rather than group >interest, later. Surely true on the whole, but there are interesting cases like the evolution of social behavior in insects to consider. --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005