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!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <1116@peora.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 15:18:22 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1116 Posted: Thu Jun 20 15:18:22 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 07:41:47 EDT References: <443@unc.UUCP> <252@rti-sel.UUCP> <> <495@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 58 >Slavery, monogamy, polygamy, etc. are of course peculiar to human beings >because they are cultural institutions and humans are the only animals we >know of that possess culture in this sense. What does this mean? You first assert we can't use the terms slavery, monogamy, polygamy, etc. in referring to animals, because they are cultural institutions; then you go on to say "cultural institutions" are institutions peculiar to humans. You have simply DEFINED the term in such a manner as to exclude animals other than humans. Why can't I as easily define "monogamy" in geese, let us say, as being the same cultural phenomenon as "monogamy" in humans? How do you define culture, other than your current definition as "a peculiarly human institution"? I would define culture to be "a behavior or custom practiced, by convention, by a group of like organisms." Now, how can you demonstrate that monogamy in geese is not cultural? Well, you could somehow make an experimental family unit of geese polygamous, and then see if their offspring turned out polygamous (or if other geese were persuaded to be polygamous, also), and if they did that, it would show that geese had a cultural behavior; if they didn't, it wouldn't show all animals didn't, but that's beside the point... the point is that before you can assert "humans are the only animals we know of that posess culture in this sense," you have to show that this is true. I don't see any evidence of that; furthermore, I considerably doubt it, since you are claiming that humans magically have some set of properties no other animal has, rather than just incrementally having MORE of some property. You can safely argue this from a religious standpoint, but not from a biological one, given existing evidence. For example, the fire ants we have here in Florida attack an ant hill, kill the queen, take the ant hill over, and make the workers work for them. How is that different from some people going to a country, killing its ruler, and making the people work for them? Ironically, I agree with the underlying premises you are arguing from, just not with your conclusion. > This is ridiculous -- I don't see how you get this out of Bill > Ingogly's posting. As I understood him, his point, with which I > entirely agree, is that we shouldn't take sociobiological > speculations for proven fact. But I would agree with that also. What annoyed me is the manner in which he stated that "amateur sociobiologists" were espousing theories that were "semirespectable", and then pointed out one person who maintained some similar theories, blamed him for the theories, and cited another author who he felt disproved them. This is not a good thing to do; that was my assertion. For one thing, you don't know what qualifications the people have here, and thus can't very well claim they don't know what they are talking about. Just today we see that one writer in here has an MS in clinical psychology. Likewise many other writers here no doubt have some background, other than "Psychology Today," for their ideas. -- 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 Bar ol bar / Gur pbyq rgpurq cyngr / Unf cevagrq gur jnez fgnef bhg.