LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  January 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE January 2003

Subject:

Re: Genes and Cultures

From:

Ian Pitchford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:34:22 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (99 lines)

Stuart A. Newman wrote:

Thanks for this, Ian. It corresponds to my sense of things, but I am not a
specialist in behavior or anthropology. Is it not the case that it also
undercuts a lot of Pinkeresque argumentation such as has appeared in The
Human Nature Review?
________

REPLY: I think the piece is pretty incoherent. It's not so much a critique as a
compilation of ideological statements; consequently the authors don't actually
support their claims, and in fact they contradict themselves throughout. For
example, there is the obligatory opening comment about "just so" stories, but
then the authors go on to assess various hypotheses against the evidence. In
other words these are genuine hypotheses which can be evaluated against rival
hypotheses and not "just so" stories. The case of the fear of snakes is
particularly illustrative as the authors try to undermine it but end up citing
the work of Sue Mineka and colleagues that supports the idea of learning
preparedness. They also want to undermine genetic determinism, but they don't
seem to know who advocates genetic determinism or what is supposed to be
determined referring in the text to both "behaviour" and "human nature",
seemingly oblivious to the fact that the discipline in question is evolutionary
*psychology*. The perspective of this discipline could be valid even if no
aspect of behaviour is genetically determined. For Ehrlich and Feldman
"environment" means "physical environment" although aspects of our social
environment have been sufficiently stable to act as selection pressures. The
authors also confuse behaviour genetics and evolutionary psychology although
these have completely different research agendas, the first concentrating on
individual differences and the latter on postulated human universals. The next
claim is that an array of research supports their claim that "most interesting
aspects of the human behavioral phenome are programmed into the brain by the
environment" although science doesn't allow us to determine what aspects of hum
an behaviour are the "most interesting" and "programming of the brain" is so
vague that it cannot be assessed. I imagine that the authors have Pavlovian and
Skinnerian conditioning in mind. If so, they need to go back to research in the
1950s and take it from there. These conditioning models, including
connectionist models, have not produced any plausible models of human
psychological functioning. The final claim (and I'm only talking about the
abstract so far) is that genetic determinism 'has had and will continue to have
unfortunate effects on public policy'. Is this a claim that has to be supported
by evidence or do we just assume that it's true? As critics have often pointed
out the idea of infinite human malleability has also had unpleasant
consequences, not least for the people of China, the Soviet Union, and
Cambodia.

This article just presents us with a series of caricatures and false choices in
science, history, and public policy.

If Ehrlich and Feldman had read the Human Nature Review they might have been
capable of producing a more informed commentary, and perhaps wouldn't have made
the silly comment about the relevance of the number of genes
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/jones.html, and who knows maybe even Ian
Tattersall would have grasped the basics of natural selection, already pointed
out to him in a Human Nature Review article by C. Loring Brace:

"There is one other major intellectual flaw in Tattersall's treatment of
evolutionary dynamics which is repeated in The Monkey in the Mirror. He has
somehow convinced himself that, since selection operates by eliminating a whole
individual, it cannot therefore have any effect on the frequency of a
particular single gene or trait in a population. Somehow he has missed the
entire message that has emerged in the field of population genetics over the
last seventy years. Yes selection does eliminate a whole individual and all the
genes possessed by that individual, but if that individual is eliminated
because of the effect of that particular gene - or if that individual thrives
because of the effect of that particular gene - and if this is true for all the
other possessors of that gene in the population as a whole, then changes in the
frequency of individual genes are very easily accounted for. The classic
example in human populations is the change in the frequency of hemoglobin S -
and sickle-cell anemia - under the influence of falciparum malaria. The change
in the frequency of blood group O as a result of smallpox in Medieval Iceland
is another example. The application of this understanding in the world of
commercial agriculture has had enormous effects, but somehow the implications
have yet to reach the American Museum of Natural History."
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/brace.html

To conclude - and this is purely speculation on my part - I wonder how "blank
slateism" came to be associated with the left and "genetic determinism" with
the right, because it seems to me that the claim of infinite malleability is
consonant with the world view of capitalism, i.e., individuals are deficient
and diseased but these imperfections can be remedied by the acquisition of the
latest consumer product.

Or do we really believe that people like Stephen Jay Gould become national
icons because of their radicalism?

Best wishes

Ian Pitchford PhD CBiol MIBiol
The Human Nature Review
http://human-nature.com/

Department of Psychiatry
Creighton University School of Medicine
3528 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE 68131, USA

Tel: 402.345.8828
Fax: 402.345.8815
http://medicine.creighton.edu/psych/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager