Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site emory.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!emory!kim
From: kim@emory.UUCP (Kim Wallen {Psychology})
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Sex and Determinism
Message-ID: <1351@emory.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-May-84 12:08:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: emory.1351
Posted: Sun May 20 12:08:58 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 21-May-84 05:40:56 EDT
References: <514@ihuxt.UUCP>
Organization: Math & Computer Science, Emory University, Atlanta
Lines: 27


I have to disagree with Mr. Martillo that the genetic determinism point
of view is progressive.  The progressive (i.e. synthetic) view is that
genotypes only set predispositions and that a genotype acting ina given
environment produces the phenotype which is what we interact and deal
with.  For some traits the phenotypic variance that can be produced by 
the environment is relatively small and for other traits it is extremely
large, but for all traits there is some environment which prevents the
expression of a given genotype (usually lethal).  One example, an 
individual has a genetic predispostion to have blond hair, but only
if exposed to x minutes/day of sunshine.  If that genotype is not exposed
to the appropriate environment the person has brown hair and looks no
different from any other brown-haired person who may or may not have
the genotype for "sun-blonding".

It is a rather antiquated position to talk of genetic determinism in
regard to behavior, just as it is antiquated to talk of pure environmental
determinism.  The rise of E.O. Wilson's brand of Sociobiology has 
unfortunately given rise once-again to these outdated views of animals
responding strictly to their geneotypes as if the environment was not
a critical player in the expression of genotypes.

Just remember, no one has ever seen a genotype, just the expression of
one in a particular environment.

Kim Wallen; Psychology Dept.; Emory University;Atlanta, GA
akgua!emory!kim