15-02-2005 21:47									#91
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	15-02-2005 23:15									#92
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	15-02-2005 23:19									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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

	15-02-2005 23:19									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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.

	15-02-2005 23:30									#95
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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

	15-02-2005 23:36									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	15-02-2005 23:42									#97
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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

	15-02-2005 23:43									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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.

	15-02-2005 23:43									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	15-02-2005 23:56									#100
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 00:05									#101
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 00:06									#102
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

	16-02-2005 00:13									#103
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 00:20									#104
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 00:26									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 00:26									#106
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 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!

	16-02-2005 00:41									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 01:00									#108
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 01:09									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	16-02-2005 01:18									#110
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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

	16-02-2005 01:30									#111
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

About.com

quote: 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."

	16-02-2005 01:57									#112
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Women
Men
Robots

	16-02-2005 02:17									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: 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.

quote: quote: 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.

quote: quote: 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).

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 02:33									#114
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	16-02-2005 02:39									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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?

	16-02-2005 02:58									#116
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 03:15									#117
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 03:18									#118
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	16-02-2005 03:26									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

	16-02-2005 11:39									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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?