Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <1092@peora.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 08:42:29 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1092 Posted: Tue Jun 18 08:42:29 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 05:11:24 EDT References: <443@unc.UUCP> <252@rti-sel.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 50 Xref: watmath net.singles:7407 net.social:687 [The referenced article discusses sociobiology, etc.] You should beware, as this is somewhat of the "flame" genre of posting. Now, I don't always agree with the people here who take these behavioristic views of human nature, nor with all the arguments regarding natural selection and its effects on human mate-selection. However, in your article in which you say >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. You seem to be strongly espousing the theories of a few people, and thereby claiming others are invalid, largely through name-calling. The problem with psychology, and sociology, and "sociobiology" as you put it, is that these are very inexact sciences. Most psychological research is based on measurement of inherently inexact parameters. As such, it is prone to error. Consider the radically different theories of various aspects of human psychology that exist. But you carry this to an anarchistic extreme, by essentially saying (by allusion to a book you've cited before) that it is impossible to approach these as sciences at all. Furthermore you attempt to argue, again by allusion, that because some "scientific" theories of psychology have been used to bad ends, all of it is invalidated. It is unwise to do this; it is further unwise to assert that people are unable to make hypotheses based on their observations (unless they have read the books you have referenced, at least). Clearly, many hypotheses of people are wrong. This is the nature of science, to make a hypotheses, then attempt to find them right or wrong. The notion that human beings do not have fundamental properties in common with other animals has generally been shown to lead to many more incorrect ideas about the nature of humankind than the opposite. People do have a great deal in common with related animals. The major distinction is that, through rational processes, they can (and often do) rise above primitive motivations. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Fheryl qnloernxf pebff bhe cngu, naq fgnl, znlor, njuvyr..."