Joe Schwartz wrote:
>: The
>Biological Basis of Coercion, MIT Press 2000.  This argument naturalises
>male violence against women. Presumably Michael Weissman, judging from his
>remark about possible genetic differences in human male and female
>sexual behaviour, might find this thesis congenial. I don't know.

Actually, Joe, strange as it may sound, I'm opposed to rape.

On a less ridiculous note, Stuart Newman wrote, concerning some
ethnographic study by Gintis:

I agree with Michael Weissman that this study appears to be a legitimate
scientific exploration of economic behavior and cultural variation.  Can
he explain what this has to do with evolutionary psychology or
behavioral genetics?

Not a whole lot. What I think after a very quick skim of what looks
like an interesting paper is that it sets some limits on what any
theory of economic behavior ought to treat as universal. In other
words, it does just what the chorus on this list insists that ev
psych types never do- make a serious study of how much cultural
flexibility there is in widespread behaviors, paying particular
attention to what types of economies lead to what character traits.
What it does not do is make a prior commitment to what the outcome
has to be, ruling out evolved general traits ahead of time.

         Michael Weissman,
Physics, UIUC   MC-704, 1110 W. Green St., Urbana, IL 61801-3080  (USA)
Phone: (217) 333-7897;   FAX: (217) 333-9819
<[log in to unmask]>