FemNazis are at it again!

[Imran Siddiqui]

OK, I'm fed up by your lies, mischaracterizations, and steadfast refusal to addess what people actually say instead of the same old strawmen you bring up in every thread.

That is usually where any discussion with Kid goes. I would have warned you sooner, but I hadn't strayed in this thread. I almost laughed out loud when he claimed you said that you got all your economics info from Poly. I wasn't sure how ANYONE could miscontrue a statement that badly!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
That's not a legitimate complaint against a scientifc theory.

Actually, it is. Any theory of humanity that fails to deal adequately with one of the most self-evident aspects of human existence is seriously flawed, at best.

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

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

Not within species social organization. If you look at an animal social group in one place, you can be fairly sure that other members of that species will act nearly identically elsewhere. This is not so with humans.

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

Let's avoid biological reductionism. One could make the claim that as the brain is a biological organ, that any products of the brain are thus biological. This however throws everything into the realm of biology without explaining anything.

Human behavior is based on numerous factors, social organization, religion, etc. Religion most certainly isn't a biological factor of humanity, but it is certainly a major motivator. Social organization has changed too many times and too radically to be biologically based. If it were, we'd still be living like chimps.

As a species, we are the most free from biological imperatives. For other species, instinct determines behavior, not so in humans. The fact that some people are biologically predisposed to alcoholism doesn't mean they are going to become alcoholics. They can chose not to drink alcohol. If biology determined our actions (which would be necessary for it to determine our social organization) then everyone with a predisposition to be alcoholic would drink alcohol.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

OK, I'm fed up by your lies, mischaracterizations, and steadfast refusal to addess what people actually say instead of the same old strawmen you bring up in every thread.

That is usually where any discussion with Kid goes. I would have warned you sooner, but I hadn't strayed in this thread. I almost laughed out loud when he claimed you said that you got all your economics info from Poly. I wasn't sure how ANYONE could miscontrue a statement that badly!

He said people here disagree with me so he disagrees with me. Seems like a reasonable assumption that he learned everything here. Otherwise he would bring in some outside sources.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Man, you really have to work on that reading comprehension. He said that people have shown you to not know what you are talking about in economics, so while he does not know for sure, he would surmise that the other person knows more than you.

[Kidlicious]

That's not what he said. I don't care to get into it with you.

[Kidlicious]

About.com

So, was the way we behave engrained in us before we were born? Or has it developed over time in response to our experiences? Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up.

Excuse me but what the hell kind of books are you guys reading. Read "Researchers on all sides of the debate agree that the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect."

[:) Smiley]

Women
Men
Robots

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Last Conformist
That's not a legitimate complaint against a scientifc theory.

Actually, it is. Any theory of humanity that fails to deal adequately with one of the most self-evident aspects of human existence is seriously flawed, at best.

I assume the "self-evident apect" is free will? Now, there's much to say about free will from the philosophical viewpoint, but I'll just note here that if it exists, it comes from brains, and is thus a biological issue whether you accept a biological foundation for sociology or not.

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

Not within species social organization. If you look at an animal social group in one place, you can be fairly sure that other members of that species will act nearly identically elsewhere. This is not so with humans.

You don't need to be a memeticist to realize that cultural evolution can in some respects mimic genetic; it can differently adapt to different circumstances, and also differently to the same circumstances given a modicum of isolation.

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

Let's avoid biological reductionism. One could make the claim that as the brain is a biological organ, that any products of the brain are thus biological. This however throws everything into the realm of biology without explaining anything.

I'm, of course, rather sympathetic to reductionism.

With good reason, too, I think; there's alot of things in human societies that do have sensible biological explanations. Sometimes "teleological", sometimes in terms of being biochemically explanable, sometimes both (men as the primary fighters, frex).

Human behavior is based on numerous factors, social organization, religion, etc. Religion most certainly isn't a biological factor of humanity, but it is certainly a major motivator. Social organization has changed too many times and too radically to be biologically based. If it were, we'd still be living like chimps.

There are, of course, biological explanations for religion ...

Chimps, incidentally, illustrate my point; they're one of the non-human species that have cultural (=non-genetic) inheritance of behaviours, with attendant cultural variation not matched by genetics. No-one is arguing that chimpanzee society is therefore not to be refered to a biological foundation.

As a species, we are the most free from biological imperatives. For other species, instinct determines behavior, not so in humans. The fact that some people are biologically predisposed to alcoholism doesn't mean they are going to become alcoholics. They can chose not to drink alcohol. If biology determined our actions (which would be necessary for it to determine our social organization) then everyone with a predisposition to be alcoholic would drink alcohol.

No sane person is arguing that our genetic make-up determines the details of our social organization*. What it does give is a set of constraints of various rigidity. Further constraints are set by more direct biological expediency; only so many life-styles are conducive to the individual's, and thence the group's, continued survival.


* If it did, Americans would have to have a legal-drinking-age-at-21 gene that Europeans lack.

[Odin]

You blank slaters should read Nature via Nurture (published as The Agile Gene in the newer editions) by Matt Ridley. It it very good at explaining that Nature and Nurture are a false dichotomy, both affect each other. Also, just because we have an allele that predisposes us to a certain behavior does not mean everyone with that allele will express that behavior because the enviroment can regulate gene expression in the brain.

BTW, I don't think there is such a thing as free will because I think that would require a dualist view of conciousness.

[Kidlicious]

Odin,

I don't think there are any blank slaters participating. You say that nature and nuture affect each other. What do you mean by that? Are you sure you don't want to put that a different way?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You say that nature and nuture affect each other. What do you mean by that?

basically in most complex behaviors there is a combanation of genetic and enviromental influences. BOTH affect our behavior, not a single one like the Blank slaters (sorry, I thought you and Che were sounding like ones), and getetic determinists think. Enviromental triggers can turn genes on and off, but also, one's genetic predispositions indirectly affect how you are educated and raised.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
You blank slaters should read Nature via Nurture (published as The Agile Gene in the newer editions) by Matt Ridley. It it very good at explaining that Nature and Nurture are a false dichotomy, both affect each other. Also, just because we have an allele that predisposes us to a certain behavior does not mean everyone with that allele will express that behavior because the enviroment can regulate gene expression in the brain.

The best way to explain it is to return to the simplest formulation of the theory of evolution, referring to inheritable
(laterally and vertically) traits rather than genes specifically. Genes aren't the sum of the true "gene pool" - genes and memes are.

BTW, I don't think there is such a thing as free will because I think that would require a dualist view of conciousness.

Not at all. Free will and determinism are entirely consistent.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The best way to explain it is to return to the simplest formulation of the theory of evolution, referring to inheritable
(laterally and vertically) traits rather than genes specifically. Genes aren't the sum of the true "gene pool" - genes and memes are.

[Last Conformist]

Just don't think of memes as discrete replicators, because then you're an evil memeticist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I assume the "self-evident apect" is free will? Now, there's much to say about free will from the philosophical viewpoint, but I'll just note here that if it exists, it comes from brains, and is thus a biological issue whether you accept a biological foundation for sociology or not.

First of all, there is this thing called "emergent properties." It may seem fuzzy and indeed it is, but many researchers argue that emergent properties do exist. For example, take intelligence. Individual neurons aren't intelligent, but if you weave a massive number of them into a vast network, intelligence emerges - it is a property of the entire system, not a property of any individual members.

Secondly, I would put sociology in the same category as economics. Namely voodoo. A scientific theory must be able to be falsified. How do you do that with sociology?