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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <259@rti-sel.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 10:01:21 EDT Article-I.D.: rti-sel.259 Posted: Wed Jun 19 10:01:21 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 13:39:51 EDT References: <443@unc.UUCP> <252@rti-sel.UUCP> <1092@peora.UUCP> Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC Lines: 87 Xref: linus net.singles:6478 net.social:685 In article <1092@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >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. How's that? What I'm SAYING is that people on the net have a tendency to carry on at great lengths about things they're only half-familiar with. And some of the popularizations I'm putting down are written by people who are neither biologists nor psychologists, or who are considered fringe elements by serious scientists. My authority for making this statement is about three years' graduate work in environmental sciences with a concentration in population biology and terrestrial ecology. I mentioned Ardrey specifically because he was the only popular writer on this subject whose name readily came to mind. >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. "Sociobiology" is not a word of my own coinage, if that's the reason you've put the word in quotes. The postings I reacted to made certain claims about linkages between genotype and behavioral phenotype. Genetics IS much closer to being an exact science than psychology or sociology. Genetics deals with measurable quantities and provides reproducible results. If you doubt this, talk to your local livestock or pet breeder. And the originator of the term "sociobiology," E. O. Wilson, is a respected biologist, not a psychologist or sociologist. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MISUSE OF BIOLOGY AND GENETICS HERE. >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. Where exactly do I say all of this? You're either misreading what I've said or misquoting me. >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). Asserting personal observations are scientific hypotheses is both dishonest and dangerous. The big danger is in the misuse of science for political ends, of course. Have you ever heard of Josef Mengele? >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. Just what qualifies the people posting to net.singles to generate "scientific" hypotheses about the genetic origins of human behavior? What these people are doing is using poorly understood half-science to back up their personal opinions and prejudices. >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. Oh? In what way was I claiming human beings "do not have fundamental properties in common with other animals?" And who exactly has "shown" the generality of the thing you're claiming? >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. ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ Unfortunately, not often enough, if many of the postings I've seen recently in this group are any indication :-) -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly