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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <267@rti-sel.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 17:50:08 EDT Article-I.D.: rti-sel.267 Posted: Fri Jun 21 17:50:08 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 02:32:50 EDT References: <443@unc.UUCP> <252@rti-sel.UUCP> <> <495@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <1116@peora.UUCP> Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC Lines: 54 In article <1116@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: > ... 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. ... >Why can't I as easily define "monogamy" in geese, let us say, as being the >same cultural phenomenon as "monogamy" in humans? ... > 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? The big distinction that has to be made here is that some social behavior is inherited, and some of it is learned. Most fire ant culture is inherited; most human culture is learned. The degree to which each is learned vs. inherited is at the heart of the argument the sociobiologists and their critics are having. There's nothing "magical" or "religious" about it. >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. ... Sorry you were annoyed, but I stand by my statement. I pointed out "one person" because I have other things to do than write 1000 line articles to the net. Please see my followup posting with (gasp!) actual quotes from sociobiologists and a bibliography to boot, if you want additional references. > ... 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. The issue addressed in my response and my subsequent posting was a biological/genetic one. How many psychologists have to take graduate courses in organismal biology, genetics, and evolutionary theory to get their degrees? An MS in clinical psychology does not necessarily make a person qualified as an evolutionary biologist. If a person's going to make claims of the sort that are at issue here, and s/he knows what s/he's talking about, let him give a reference to his source, for Pete's sake. And if he DOESN'T know what he's talking about, let him make a statement in his posting that clearly identifies it as personal opinion. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly