>>Pinker establishes two things within the first ten minutes that make his perspective a lot more reasonable and considered This isn't new. Go back and check w

>>Pinker establishes two things within the first ten minutes that make his perspective a lot more reasonable and considered This isn't new. Go back and check what Pinker/Dawkins et al have been writing for a long time. >>I think that questions of behavior as adaptive would encounter less immediate resistance—and explanations of behavior as adaptive would lose much of their unsavory panacean appeal—if these factors were better understood. You shouldn't just trust other people's description of the position they argue against, if they argue from political/religious standpoints. (I don't know why the extreme left have problems with some behaviors being strongly influenced genetically. Frankly, I have better things to do than care what some idealists "know" are true.) That said, you will find bad research in all areas. Edit: I might add this reference from an old Gould discussion, to show that side of the coin... http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html Or this fun review of a "classic" book: http://dba.fc.ul.pt/evo/textos/dawkins_review_not_in_our_genes.pdf http://dba.fc.ul.pt/evo/textos/dawkins_review_not_in_our_gen...