3 ms·

Like you, I was confused by this whole thing. In my mind Wilson is slotted next to Attenborough as a kind and knowledgeable naturalist environmentalist. The onl

by Vetch 5y ago

Like you, I was confused by this whole thing. In my mind Wilson is slotted next to Attenborough as a kind and knowledgeable naturalist environmentalist. The only controversy I knew associated with him was his claim that skill with math is not necessary to be a great scientist. What I could piece together: People didn't like that he supported the idea that genetics has a large influence on personality, behavior or intellect, a genetic leash as he called it (he also argued against free will). I suppose the fact that Evolutionary Psychology (which is susceptible to just-so stories) derives from Sociobiology is also enough for current people to unfairly accuse him of promoting racism. Something surprising I learned from all this is cancellations, de-platforming and campus protests of certain ideas already existed way back in the 60s and 70s! The only difference with today is increased connectivity and mass. > In the ’60s and ’70s it became almost dogma — it was a dogma — to believe that the human brain was a tabula rasa, a blank slate. I don’t think scholars in this generation, even those of middle age, can appreciate how stern was the prohibition against believing that human behavior was influenced by genes in any manner whatsoever. > But I really was upset at being called a racist, promoting racism and sexism. I was accused of trying to reintroduce a retrograde, outmoded, dangerous philosophy. There was nothing in “Sociobiology” to suggest such a thing. The words had to be taken out of context and tweaked. > On one occasion, I had a little mob in Harvard Square parading and protesting and holding placards demanding that Harvard dismiss me. On another occasion, when I was to give a lecture at the Science Center, a crowd of protesters gathered at the entrance with signs and shouts and chants and so on. I was ushered in through the rear by University police. My class was disrupted at least once. --- The SciAm article spent only a few words on Wilson. It instead seemed to really want to air disagreements on how health studies are carried out and IMO, was sloppy in its attempt to shoehorn Wilson in. It would probably have worked better as a stand alone piece on how poverty impacts on health outcomes are ignored. --- Sources: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/04/search-until-you-find-a-passion-and-go-all-out-to-excel-in-its-expression/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/04/search-until-... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sociobiology https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sociobiology https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1bwoeg/e_o_wilson_vs_math/ https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1bwoeg/e_o_wilson_vs_...

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Another article posted here, defending Wilson, states that he himself later agreed his work was sexist. So we may need to add specific dates to quotes about him being hounded for "nothing" or it'll not make much sense. > He acknowledges one charge as having validity, the accusation from more thoughtful feminists that he had over-simplified the role of women. “As time has gone on two things have happened,” he says. “One is that we are vastly better informed about gender differences, their genetic and physiological bases, right down to fine- tuning of hormonal regulation of behaviour. Another thing is that scientists like Sarah Hardy have been able to demonstrate a far greater richness of female flexibility in reproductive strategies. It’s far more subtle and sophisticated than we anticipated. The theory in the 70s was that women were more passive, judging between male capacities, but now we know that women are vastly more powerful than that in establishing relationships So that's a 2001 quote from a positive article interviewing 71 year old Wilson. Presumably we've not learned anything about the genetics or other aspects of race since the 70s and so all his theories on that are still valid and anyone who disagreed was totally unreasonable, like the less thoughtful feminists. Oh and your article, is 3 years later, and in which he returns to it all being a big misunderstanding, that he was technically right and invented "evolutionary psychology" but he just needed to add a disclaimer that although he said that women were genetically designed to act the way his society wanted them to, and not like some of them claimed they wanted to behave, that didn't mean his society was right and they were wrong. But he won a Pulitzer, so he was right and they were wrong. Glad we cleared this up.
- Vetch 5y ago
  The issue is most people coming to this are lacking in context, on whose details it seems all sides are not willing to be forthcoming. When I searched I could not find anything that could be pointed at to justify his being labelled racist. The example you point out is an instance of the just-so type stories I mentioned. It would have been more helpful if the SciAm article had gone into detail with examples like that, pointing out relevant and topical flaws and gaps in his reasoning. The criticism section of the plato page I linked to goes into some detail and ideas of his relying on group selection can be instantly marked as suspect. It's a shame because if the article had been more on-topic, resulting conversation could have been more substantial.

by Vetch 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Another article posted here, defending Wilson, states that he himself later agreed his work was sexist. So we may need to add specific dates to quotes about him being hounded for "nothing" or it'll not make much sense. > He acknowledges one charge as having validity, the accusation from more thoughtful feminists that he had over-simplified the role of women. “As time has gone on two things have happened,” he says. “One is that we are vastly better informed about gender differences, their genetic and physiological bases, right down to fine- tuning of hormonal regulation of behaviour. Another thing is that scientists like Sarah Hardy have been able to demonstrate a far greater richness of female flexibility in reproductive strategies. It’s far more subtle and sophisticated than we anticipated. The theory in the 70s was that women were more passive, judging between male capacities, but now we know that women are vastly more powerful than that in establishing relationships So that's a 2001 quote from a positive article interviewing 71 year old Wilson. Presumably we've not learned anything about the genetics or other aspects of race since the 70s and so all his theories on that are still valid and anyone who disagreed was totally unreasonable, like the less thoughtful feminists. Oh and your article, is 3 years later, and in which he returns to it all being a big misunderstanding, that he was technically right and invented "evolutionary psychology" but he just needed to add a disclaimer that although he said that women were genetically designed to act the way his society wanted them to, and not like some of them claimed they wanted to behave, that didn't mean his society was right and they were wrong. But he won a Pulitzer, so he was right and they were wrong. Glad we cleared this up.

Vetch 5y ago
The issue is most people coming to this are lacking in context, on whose details it seems all sides are not willing to be forthcoming. When I searched I could not find anything that could be pointed at to justify his being labelled racist. The example you point out is an instance of the just-so type stories I mentioned. It would have been more helpful if the SciAm article had gone into detail with examples like that, pointing out relevant and topical flaws and gaps in his reasoning. The criticism section of the plato page I linked to goes into some detail and ideas of his relying on group selection can be instantly marked as suspect. It's a shame because if the article had been more on-topic, resulting conversation could have been more substantial.