"We're not animals"

[mindstalk]

Told to take this discussion somewhere else, I'm dumping my expanded thoughts here.

"We're not animals." There's the biologist response, of "oh, yes we are." There's the logician response, of "if we're not animals, then what was the point of bringing up homosexual behavior in the wild? And then animal rape should be irrelevant to us." And there's the philosopher response of muttering about the naturalistic fallacy. Whether rape or gayness are natural, or happen in other species, is irrelevant to their wrongness or rightness for us. Rape's wrong because it hurts people. Gay behavior is okay because it doesn't. Evolutionary background is irrelevant. We can use condemnation and prison to discourage behavior we don't like regardless of the reasons behind it. Murder's natural, under some circumstances; infanticide is natural. But we don't make excuses for those.

"Naturalness" would be relevant only if a behavior was *so* natural that it wasn't controllable, that the threat of punishment wouldn't deter men from raping. But being imprisoned would still prevent the rapist from committing further rapes (at least, outside of prison); "I can't help myself" isn't exactly a good argument for being allowed out on the street. And if men were that much of an uncontrollable ravaging horde then female separatism -- or isolation of males -- would make a lot of sense. Fortunately, morality, empathy, and fear are (imperfectly) effective in restraining aggression.

Evolution isn't an excuse for bad behavior; bad excuses aren't a reason for denying facts of natural history.

Thoughts? Can this be said better? Am I wrong?

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You are confusing "evolutionary psychology" with "biological determinism." Biology isn't even completely destiny for the higher animals, let alone for humans.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Evolutionary psychology is essentially based upon the idea of biological determinism. Almost all of it involves researchers trying to construct biological explanations for modern first world (or even more often, slightly archaic) morals and social patterns. I happen to think biological determinism is utter nonsense, which explains my feelings about the entire discipline of evo psych.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

All I can say is that you have a far more cynical and negative view of evo psych. To me it seems like judging science fiction by Piers Anthony and John Norman.

Dawkins has a
scathing review (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml) of Rose, Kamin, and Lewontin.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'm vastly unimpressed. I'm not a biologist. I can't argue genetics in detail. However, I have extensively studied the history of social science (that was one of my fields of study [along with physics and math] before going into anthro).

For the entire 20th century, genetic determinism has not only been used by non-scientists to support all manner of reactionary and oppressive ideas, researchers (who depending upon the era, have called themselves eugenicists, sociobiologists, or evolutionary psychologists) have specifically looked for (and using a vast array of dubious research techniques, found) all manner of alleged proofs of the supposed genetic inferiority of "lesser races", women, homosexuals, and criminals.

The (thankfully brief) revival of "criminal genetics" in the mid 1970s and the various attempt to attempt to prove the inherent inferiority of women at mathematics using brain structure and usage studies during the 1990s are only two of many possible examples I've seen such researchers use.

From what I've read, Dawkins has not been associated with any such efforts, but I've never heard him denounce such studies, despite the fact that (at least with the more recent work) the researchers regularly attempt to gain legitimacy by referencing his work, just as similar research from the 70s and early 80s similarly referenced E.O. Wilson's work.

I should note that my knowledge of these issues is largely limited to the United States, and I do not particularly know that relations between social ideas, politics, and biology in other nations. However, in the US at least, Dawkin's dismissal of that work (which I admittedly read, more than 20 years ago) is ill-founded.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

What is the connection between "genetic determinism" and Dawkins's review? And I'd note part of the point of the review was that Lewontin et al. attack a straw man, at least when aiming at him, as shown by the cake example. Another point being that they couldn't find actual biologists to quote.

The reductio end point of the direction you argue in seems to be "Darwin has been invoked to defend racial eugenics and Social Darwinism, therefore evolution by natural selection must be wrong." You seem to be saying "sociobiology is used for bad purposes, so must be wrong." I haven't studied the history of social science, but I have read directly or summaries of Dawkins, Williams, Tooby and Cosmides, Hamilton, Haldane, Trivers, so I feel confident saying "the science is good, whatever misuses are made of it." And maybe, "the good science may not be what you think it is."

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'm saying more than that it's being used for bad purposes. I'm saying that a significant number of the researchers (at least in the US) are coming up with and attempting to prove theories for primarily (reactionary) ideological reasons. I haven't kept up with this as much since I left grad school in the mid 90s, and so my data since then has largely been looking up further information of articles that were popularly published, but I think I'm on fairly solid ground in this assertion for US evo psych and sociobiology in the late 70s to early 90s.

I believe that sociobiology became a major force in US biology in the early 1980s largely because of the conservative shift in US politics during that time, and that evo psych continues this trend. If I'm correct, then evo psych will significantly fall out of favor when US politics becomes significantly more progressive. Given that we seem on the edge (hopefully) of just such a transformation, I'm guessing that there will be actual data on this front in 4 or 5 years. If I'm correct, then by that time, most of the hot new theories will be discrediting evo psych, genetic determinism, and the various related ideas. I absolutely have no idea what these new theories will be, but if US politics shifts in a progressive direction, I'm quite convinced that US biology will follow suit.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Evolutionary psychology is essentially based upon the idea of biological determinism.

No, it's based upon the idea that the psychologies of living beings evolve along with their physiologies. This is self-evident: how do you imagine the psychologies of creatures originate? Divine intervention?

However, psychologies are not purely determined by genetics. There are also the effects of the natural environment and of the social environment (culture). These are the domains of memetics, and of free will (in the case of the higher animals, including Man).

I happen to think biological determinism is utter nonsense, which explains my feelings about the entire discipline of evo psych.

Shall I not assume then that you have a carbon-based water-soluble metabolism based on the inhalation of oxygen, the combination of glucose with that oxygen to produce carbon dioxide? Or that you are a tetrapodal biped with warm blood whose species bear their young live?

Perhaps you should explain exactly what you don't consider to be at all "biologically determined," and what your reasons for believing this is. Note that "it can be used by EVIL conserviatives" is NOT a rational reason for disbelieving in something!

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Note that "it can be used by EVIL conserviatives" is NOT a rational reason for disbelieving in something!

True, but the fact that it was largely developed by "evil conservatives" (which from my PoV, is an unnecessarily duplicative phrase) is. A study of the history of human biology and social science reveals politics and social attitudes plays at least as much of a role as any sort of idea of "objective science".

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

True, but the fact that it was largely developed by "evil conservatives" (which from my PoV, is an unnecessarily duplicative phrase) is.

First of all, the proponent of a theory does not affect whether it is true or false. Secondly, current sociobiologists include both liberals and conservatives. Finally, you still haven't explained how biology can avoid influencing psychology, given that species evolve their minds to aid their survival.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Before you and Jordan get off into a spiral (and so far I agree with Jordan, apart from the "free will" bit and the mention of Man), let me ask you to *define* biological determinism or genetic determinism. What do you think those are, and entail?

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'm definitely done arguing with Jordan.

What I mean by genetic determinism is the belief that behavior (specifically, in the cases I've been discussing, the behavior of social mammals) is largely determined by genetics rather than by any other means. I simply do not believe this is true. I would site examples of genetic determinism as being the belief that traits likes levels aggression or sexual preference are genetically determined. I believe genetics does play some (usually fairly minor) role in such behaviors, but my best guess is that it accounts for no more than (at most) 20% of any given behavior, with learning and environmental factors being by far the primary determinants of human and higher primate behavior and significant contributors to all mammalian behavior.