Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social
Subject: Re: Intelligence
Message-ID: <252@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 10:10:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.252
Posted: Fri Jun 14 10:10:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Jun-85 20:09:44 EDT
References: <gargoyle.478> <443@unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.singles:7346 net.social:669
Summary: 

In article <443@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes:

>Frank Silbermann writes:
>>> It is common among many animals in nature that when mating, the female
>>> chooses the male who is the best physical specimen.  This gives the
>>> children two advantages -- a greater likelihood of growing up to be equally
>>> strong, and the greater protection from a father who is dominant in the 
>>> herd.  Such instincts probably influence human mating even today.
>
>In article <gargoyle.478> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes
>
>>Perhaps.  But given that cooperation and sharing are basic to the
>>human species (see recent work in paleoanthropology) a woman's
>>offspring would have a selective advantage if her mate was not only
>>strong but used his strength to the advantage of his family.
>
>This ties in to a previous posting of mine, about why women respond
>so much better to generous men.

There appear to be a lot of amateur sociobiologists out there on the
net. I hope they realize that much of what they're saying is based on
certain half-respectable popularizations by people like Robert Ardrey
(sp?) and his ilk. Just because it's published in Psychology Today
don't make it so. 

If you want to talk sociobiology, go read E. O. Wilson's book by the
same title. But be sure and read the volumes of criticism that have
been leveled at his work and the work of other sociobiologists. 

To be specific: I challenge ANY of you to point to a study that's
linked a genetic component to ANY of the behavior you're talking
about. The early chapters of E. O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" say a lot
of valid things; he's a good scientist (see for example his important
work on insect societies). But the chapter that's most interesting to
his popularizers is the final chapter (or at any rate one of the last
chapters) that speculates about the inherited nature of much of human
behavior. It's fun to read, but it's NOT science. It's instructive to
read this chapter and make a list of the HARD FACTS contained in it.

There's a real danger in using pseudoscience to support our personal
prejudices and beliefs about human behavior, even if the pseudoscience
is qualified by words like "perhaps" and "probably." If you don't 
believe it, check out a few history books from the library. A book 
I've cited before and that someone else in this book has recently cited 
that deals with the political misuse of science is "The Mismeasure 
Of Man," by Stephen Jay Gould. Must reading for anyone who gets most
of his/her science from popular magazines like Psychology Today or 
Science Digest.

                           -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly