FemNazis are at it again!

[Kidlicious]

Consider the case in point. In general, women can not reach high places of employment without some govt regulation. This is because corporations can not afford to pay them while they are pregnant and allow them to return to the same job. This isn't because people are bad. It's because of capitalism. Corporations can not afford to do that.

[Odin]

This brings up an interesting point, that it seems like many of the academic far left, especially in things that have to deal with human behavior, have a tendency to let thier politics influence their research instead of having thier research influencing thier politics(*cough* Blank Slate *cough*).

A well known example of this was in the 70's when biologist Edward O. Wilson's book on the evolution of behavior, Sociobiology, was bublished. The people on the far left, especially the marxists and feminazis, threatened him, calling him a racist and sexist for explaining human behavior in evolutionary terms, mainly because of thier ideological adhearence to the blank slate.

[Last Conformist]

I don't think that ideological commitment is restricted to the hard left.

[chequita guevara]

Well, there was also the fact that Wilson relied on a lot of old, thoroughly discredited research that was created by people trying to justify racism. Sociobiology is nothing more than the same hoary old Social Darwinism with a new name. Today it goes by the name Bell Curve, and since it's been about ten years, I'm sure some other scientist with links to the white supremacy movement will appear trying to re-tread this bald tire.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, there was also the fact that Wilson relied on a lot of old, thoroughly discredited research that was created by people trying to justify racism. Sociobiology is nothing more than the same hoary old Social Darwinism with a new name. Today it goes by the name Bell Curve, and since it's been about ten years, I'm sure some other scientist with links to the white supremacy movement will appear trying to re-tread this bald tire.

I have never read Wilson's book so I don't know, but it is my observation that every time a new behavior-influencing gene is found there are a bunch of ideolouges screaming "Genetic Determinism" even though very few genes actually determine behavior and intelligence, most only influence it. And yes, many of Wilson's ideas were incorrect, but it started to get the research community out of the now disproven blank slate paradigm

[Last Conformist]

I've not read Sociobiology either, but the chief criticism I've heard of it is that it was premature; Wilson wrote before there was sufficient data and detailed understanding at hand, and so got alot of specifics wrong.

That there is a biological basis for sociology appears to be the basic paradigm today. Omnis cultura ex cultura seems to be dead.

[Kidlicious]

You can't promise a cookie to someone for doing something and then say it's their nature to do the thing.

[chequita guevara]

You're putting two things together that don't go together: Wilson and genetic research. Sociobiology was not a scientific book, but an attack on civil rights and women's rights disguised as science. The fact that Wilson had to rely on old, outdated research to "prove" his point only shows how unscientific it was.

Research into the influence of genes on behavior had nothing to do with Wilson, and only became possible in the 90s. Unfortunately, there is a trend within the biological sciences that seems to want to rehabilitate Wilson and his ilk.

The reason why people get so up in arms is because of the policy conclusions that result from these shoddy works. It was no accident that Wilson produced his book at a time when women were demanding equal rights. Well along comes a "scientist" who says, but women are naturally inferior (I'm paraphrasing). The authors of The Bell Curve came to the conclusion that efforts to bring about equality between whites and Blacks would only result in failure. This is what sociobiology is all about, a justification of the current social order. It had nothing to do with science.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

That there is a biological basis for sociology appears to be the basic paradigm today. Omnis cultura ex cultura seems to be dead.

Seems to be dead is an understatement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
That there is a biological basis for sociology appears to be the basic paradigm today.

Biological influence would be more accurate.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Biological influence would be more accurate.

I'm feeling the gravitational pull of a war of definitions, but the books I've read from the last decade or so all assume a more important and foundational role for biology in human society than I'd take the word "influence" to indicate. The possibility is, of course, that this fairly smally selection of books do not adequately represent the scientific mainstream.

[Kidlicious]

People are born with certain tendencies. For example, some kids lack emotional intelligence, but their environment can go a long way to make up for it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I'm feeling the gravitational pull of a war of definitions, but the books I've read from the last decade or so all assume a more important and foundational role for biology in human society than I'd take the word "influence" to indicate.

The problem with that is it removes free will from the equation. Once everything is reduced to a biological cause, then we have no responsibility for our actions. Biology made me do it. It also fails to explain the number and diverse types of societies world wide.

At best, biology generally pushes us in a certain direction. Whether we chose to continue that way is up to us. In some aspects, biology is fundimental, sexual orientation, aggression, etc. but this seems to be the exception rather than the norm.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


I'm feeling the gravitational pull of a war of definitions, but the books I've read from the last decade or so all assume a more important and foundational role for biology in human society than I'd take the word "influence" to indicate. The possibility is, of course, that this fairly smally selection of books do not adequately represent the scientific mainstream.

What books are you talking about. Influence is definitely the prefered word. I think it is rare to say that either nature of nuture does more than influence personality and behavior.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The problem with that is it removes free will from the equation. Once everything is reduced to a biological cause, then we have no responsibility for our actions. Biology made me do it.

That's not a legitimate complaint against a scientifc theory.

Not that saying that sociology being based on biology per se denies free will or personal responsibility.

It also fails to explain the number and diverse types of societies world wide.

Care to motivate that? If there's one thing biology does well, it's diversity.

At best, biology generally pushes us in a certain direction. Whether we chose to continue that way is up to us. In some aspects, biology is fundimental, sexual orientation, aggression, etc. but this seems to be the exception rather than the norm.

Please suggest what, if not biology, the rest of human behaviour is based on.