4 ms·

Scientist at Work - Edward O. Wilson

8 points by echair 18y ago

mynameishere 18y ago
I remember getting into an argument with a sociology professor (in hindsight, probably a Marxist) who stated that there are no instinctual behaviors. I gave a simple example--babies suckling--that just angered him more. Obviously, all behavior is partly shaped by instinct. But the connection is so non-deterministic that it's pretty easy to completely deny it. Sometimes the dog goes to his foodbowl at 2:00, sometimes at 2:10. Or, sometimes he smacks his lips, sometimes not. Ergo, the dog does not have an instintual urge to eat. At least not in a particular way. If nothing else, you could probably teach a dog, BF Skinner-like, to have anorexia nervosa. Behavior can be engineered. No doubt about it. The problem, of course, is that personality qualities are partly inherited just like intelligence. This is problematic for a couple reasons: 1. The practice of measuring intelligence is well-developed and the results have been carefully studied. This is not the case with vague behaviors like "hardworkingness". 2. Traditionally, when coming up with excuses for why different groups have different levels of intelligence, other types of behavior are brought up: "Those Asian students spend all their time studying. Of course they succeed." This suggests that studiousness is the prescription for fixing bad students. But, in fact, that very studiousness is largely shaped by genetics. Sociobiology kills off the last fantasies of Marxism.
- logjam 18y ago
  Uh, no. May I recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to you. That book effectively destroys any idea that studiousness, or intelligence, at the group level (like your example of "Asians", whatever the hell "Asians" means), has anything to do with genetics.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    has anything to do with genetics Well, I would never say genetics is 100 percent responsible for any products of the mind. You seem to think that genetics is zero percent responsible. This is an untenable position, and not one Jared Diamond would hold either, at least not when he was researching the importance of testicle sizes of different races [1]. (You have to actually read it to get a laugh. Anyone have a nature login?) I am so tired of Jared Diamond. It seems like there's always some sheister, Stephen Jay Gould, or Diamond, or somebody who propagandizes effectively enough to come up every time a subject is raised. [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6062/abs/320488a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6062/abs/320488a0...
Alex3917 18y ago
Scientists have been in favor of group selection since the late 1800s. I don't see what's new about this at all. Here's a quote from 1902 that implies the existence of group selection: "Competition [...] is limited among animals to exception periods. [...] Better conditions are created by the elimation of competition by means of mutual aid and mutual support. [...] "Don't Compete" -- competition is always injurious to the species, and you have plenty of resources to avoid it!" That is the tendency of nature, not always realized in full, but always present. That is the watchword which comes to us from the bush, the forest, the river, the ocean. "Therefore combine -- practice mutual aid!" That is what nature teaches us." -- Pter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid
byrneseyeview 18y ago
Related: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-ants.html http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-ants.html

8 points by echair 18y ago

I remember getting into an argument with a sociology professor (in hindsight, probably a Marxist) who stated that there are no instinctual behaviors. I gave a simple example--babies suckling--that just angered him more. Obviously, all behavior is partly shaped by instinct. But the connection is so non-deterministic that it's pretty easy to completely deny it. Sometimes the dog goes to his foodbowl at 2:00, sometimes at 2:10. Or, sometimes he smacks his lips, sometimes not. Ergo, the dog does not have an instintual urge to eat. At least not in a particular way. If nothing else, you could probably teach a dog, BF Skinner-like, to have anorexia nervosa. Behavior can be engineered. No doubt about it. The problem, of course, is that personality qualities are partly inherited just like intelligence. This is problematic for a couple reasons: 1. The practice of measuring intelligence is well-developed and the results have been carefully studied. This is not the case with vague behaviors like "hardworkingness". 2. Traditionally, when coming up with excuses for why different groups have different levels of intelligence, other types of behavior are brought up: "Those Asian students spend all their time studying. Of course they succeed." This suggests that studiousness is the prescription for fixing bad students. But, in fact, that very studiousness is largely shaped by genetics. Sociobiology kills off the last fantasies of Marxism.

logjam 18y ago
Uh, no. May I recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to you. That book effectively destroys any idea that studiousness, or intelligence, at the group level (like your example of "Asians", whatever the hell "Asians" means), has anything to do with genetics.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- mynameishere 18y ago
  has anything to do with genetics Well, I would never say genetics is 100 percent responsible for any products of the mind. You seem to think that genetics is zero percent responsible. This is an untenable position, and not one Jared Diamond would hold either, at least not when he was researching the importance of testicle sizes of different races [1]. (You have to actually read it to get a laugh. Anyone have a nature login?) I am so tired of Jared Diamond. It seems like there's always some sheister, Stephen Jay Gould, or Diamond, or somebody who propagandizes effectively enough to come up every time a subject is raised. [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6062/abs/320488a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6062/abs/320488a0...

Alex3917 18y ago

Scientists have been in favor of group selection since the late 1800s. I don't see what's new about this at all. Here's a quote from 1902 that implies the existence of group selection: "Competition [...] is limited among animals to exception periods. [...] Better conditions are created by the elimation of competition by means of mutual aid and mutual support. [...] "Don't Compete" -- competition is always injurious to the species, and you have plenty of resources to avoid it!" That is the tendency of nature, not always realized in full, but always present. That is the watchword which comes to us from the bush, the forest, the river, the ocean. "Therefore combine -- practice mutual aid!" That is what nature teaches us." -- Pter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid

byrneseyeview 18y ago

Related: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-ants.html http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-ants.html