The interested reader will find this quote in The Beaver's Tale chapter of The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins.Richard Dawkins said:My first book, 'The Selfish Gene', could equally have been called 'The Co-operative Gene' without a word of the book itself needing to be changed. Indeed, this might have saved some misunderstanding (some of a book's most vocal critics are content to read the book by title only). Selfishness and co-operation are two sides of a Darwinian coin. Each gene promotes its own selfish welfare, by co-operating with other genes in the sexually stirred gene pool which is that gene's environment, to build shared bodies.
Dawkins’ dinner-party conceit has no way of explaining the success of one particular form over another. To take a trivial example – why did the “meme” of mini-skirts spread in the 1960s? Why was it subsequently supplanted? There is no answer to these questions at the level of the “meme” – they can only be answered by reference to cultural effects, which is a different level of analysis.
Well, social reactionaries may well feel that homosexuality is an important facet of human sexuality; and that it is socially determined. They may call it a western decadence for that sort of reason. But they would be wrong (as exhaustively documented in Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl).urbanrevolt said:... indeed much of human sexuality ... is historically and socially determined- in my opinion almost all the important facets of human sexuality ...
urbanrevolt said:...though he does argue that we have instincts that are genetic- this should neither be rejected out of hand nor automatically assumed- it's an empirical question to an extent.
urbanrevolt said:Hence Gorski's points are important when directed against those who really hold a simplisitc and reductionist view of human nature- indeed much of human sexuality as Gorski argues is historically and socially determined- in my opinion almost all the important facets of human sexuality (though I think it too hasty to reject entirely genetically based instincts- which can however be culturally over-ridden- though I have an open mind on this).
urbanrevolt said:I think is more usefully related to the questions of capitalism and the constructions of identity through for example advertising, propaganda, class struggle and social movements.
In other words, the questions are political and social. That does not however preclude thoeries and models such as game theory as having potential insihts that can help us as conscious, creative socially networking beings in attempting to make a better society.
Fruitloop said:The best thing that can be said for Gould is that he has highlighted the dangers of incautious use of scientific analogy. Other than that there is a lot of straw man bashing and unproductive theoretical huffing and puffing in a manner that will be not unfamiliar to readers of this forum.
Kyzer, no easy answers in the debate you invoke. No silver bullet solutions. It's complex! Sorry but...
kyser_soze said:Pah! Be a man and have the courage of your convictions and take a stand
I am a NZer..
gorski said:Jonti, good ol' Winston and another 3 gazzillion of yous won't change the facts of the matter - humans have no instincts!!!
Anyone who tried establishing those as "facts" got burned and had to change their position. Dewey or - whomever! Behaviourist attack was savage, report some Social Psychology textbooks, as it has been reported that given changed circumstances Human behaviour changes etc. So, the author moves to "habits" and so forth. It doesn't get any better with that, either. Anyone who tried establishing any such "givens" [no less but by birth!] was in deep trouble very quickly!
Really, Jonti, stop embarassing yourself so freely. Inform yourself a wee bit before you start this nonsense...
As for your champion: Winston is good... for a TV personality. He should stick to what he knows best, really.
As for that - he changed his mind completely, after having attacked savagely those who pioneered that which he now got some rewards for, on the back of their bold efforts, pushing the boundaries and risking. W. just couldn't grasp it. Quite the opposite was the case. He sided with the "established authorities" at the time. Now he is one. But his earlier position is forgotten... He profits after he caused some anguish and pain. Those pioneers are not really mentioned...
Btw, did he apologise to those guys?
Anyway, I think I told you I can give you an autograph here and there, Jonti.
So, I believe Giddens knows much better, together with the rest of the critically minded intelligentia...
Kyzer, no easy answers in the debate you invoke. No silver bullet solutions. It's complex! Sorry but...
Just as a thought experiment, how about if you were contemplating living on another planet, amongst a very alien life form?So my question is, to what degree can the science of genetic evolution ever say anything about 'human nature' when culture seems to have such a strong influence? Can science provide useful information about 'human nature' at all when 'culture' is too complex a phenomenon for it to explain? Should whatever can be said about human nature be left to psychologists and social scientists (who take account of culture), or is it possible to discuss certain norms from the evolutionary angle?