Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

Amazing that on this thread some folks (half of the very few I have on ignore) seem to want to argue with me about things I haven't actually said!

So very sad of them, but true all the same :D
 
The bulk of what Dennett says about sociobiology in Darwin's Dangerous Idea is highly critical.

If I remember correctly the sociobiologists hated Dawkin's Selfish Gene book.

Both Dawkins and Dennett criticise Gould on some pretty technical details. But then Gould's arguments are nitpicks of neo-Darwinianism. In the media Gould, Dawkins and Dennett are like monsters out of a Godzilla film squaring up to each other in a kill or be killed face off. But that's the media for you.
 
In his book ‘The Selfish Gene’ Dawkins is using the word selfish in a very precise sense. He is highlighting the fact that a gene will operate in its own interest even if that means destroying an organism that it inhabits or helped create.

Dawkins says this about that title ...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

:D

He needs to read 'The Tipping Point' by Malcolm Gladwell for an opener on how memes spor and reproduce, going from nothing to everywhere and back to nothing...
 
urbanrevolt said:
... indeed much of human sexuality ... is historically and socially determined- in my opinion almost all the important facets of human sexuality ...
Click to expand...
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).

I appreciate that line of thinking is something of a diversion -- the ethics is what matters, not whether a particular sort of behaviour is "natural" or "culturally determined". I'm just concerned that the beliefs of idealists are not given too much credence compared to what is actually found to be the case in the real world.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I took issue with it earlier, especially in the first three pages of this thread. Feel free to check it out, please... ;)

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).
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I didn't do it hastily but over a number of years of studying the issues... :D Still can't find a single "instinct", as in "a complex pattern of behaviour" etc., regardless of the definition, in our very nature, built-in, as it were, not learnt...

But I think I know what you mean. :)

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.
Click to expand...

You can do it [find it, analyse it etc.] in any Epoch, any society, I think. All would lay their hands on their "Bible" and state for the record they found what acting in relation to "human nature" is and that their's is the most natural one... I suppose... ;)

So, the Q is also Philosophical. Actually, essentially Philosophical. And not until Marxism/Critical Theory did we get the attempt to understand just how is our own thinking conditioned by our own, very special, Human "environment" [economics, society at large, mores, culture, civilisation, politics etc.]...

So, my point is of the methodical sort, I suppose, also going to the very grounds, Philosophically speaking, on which any grand statements can be made... :cool:
 
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.
Click to expand...

I wish I understood what all the huffing and puffing was about. The only thing it seems to have achieved was giving the impression that Gould was a crypto-creationist.
 
Re: instinct. What about the incest taboo? It's common to pretty much all societies, no-one has to be taught 'don't fuck your sister' and it emerges where the conditions are similar even where there's actually no prohibition, for example in kibbutzim where the children are raised together. Fear of snakes and spiders is another good candidate. All in all there's a pretty blurred boundary between instinctive reflexes (which are not enculturated in any meaningful way) and what we would regard as higher instincts (with the proviso that the 'higher' an instinct is the more amenable it is to being overridden at a cognitive level), so it doesn't seem to me that a no-instinct position is really that coherent as a description of all of human behaviour.
 
I'm sorry but that is just not true at all. That is something that has to be taught, too. When it comes to cats and other animals - I think it just doesn't follow. If you don't separate them.... it happens.

A few years back there was a good TV show on the subject, whereby the crew went "behind the scenes" of the taboo and researched the genetic and other potential reasons for it. They were not that lucky, if memory serves: the percentages are not significantly higher in those cases [reproductively]. All of course: "if I remember correctly". Must check, when I get some time.

The pair were from Middle Eastern background [at least in the West the story has to be told with a face one can recognise] and I'm afraid I can't remember much more in terms of data. But it would be interesting to see where all that [the taboo] comes from.

Power-wise, in the ancient times, and until recently even - for inheritance purposes - such stuff was common, at least in the upper echelons of society.

Interesting set of questions, though...;)

Edit re. the snakes - no such fear in kids, it seems. We covered it in this thread already. Faeces and spiders etc. etc. likewise. All that needs to be taught.

Reflex when something is about to hit your eye is quite a different thing. Swallowing, grabbing etc. - all reflexes.

Urges are to be distinguished from instincts, also.
 
Btw, for instance, Giddens covered it [no instincts in Humans topic] in his Sociology - I think until the 2nd or 3rd edition. Then I didn't see it afterwards...
 
Human Instinct

Amazon Synopsis:

From caveman to modern man ...Few people doubt that humans are descended from the apes; fewer still consider, let alone accept, the psychological implications. But in truth, man not only looks, moves and breathes like an ape, he also thinks like one. Sexual drive, survival, competition, aggression - all of our impulses are driven by our human instincts. They explain why a happily married man will fantasize about the pretty, slim, young woman sitting across from him in the tube and why thousands of people spend their week entirely focused on whether their team will win their next crucial match.But how well do our instincts equip us for the twenty-first century? Do they help or hinder us as we deal with large anonymous cities, stressful careers, relationships and the battle of the sexes? In this fascinating book, Robert Winston takes us on a journey deep into the human mind. Along the way he takes a very personal look at the relationship between science and religion and explores those very instincts that make us human.
 
Readers will just have to decide for themselves whether Professor Lord Robert Wilson or gorski has the better grasp of the science of the matter!

To my mind, this makes ample sense ... Few people doubt that humans are descended from the apes; fewer still consider, let alone accept, the psychological implications. But in truth, man not only looks, moves and breathes like an ape, he also thinks like one.

Well, some do, of course, as we see in this thread. But "modern thinkers" <*snigger*> who reject evolution will only have trouble understanding the gifts and burdens of our biological inheritance. That makes them a noisy and distracting irrelevance. The best one can say about that kind of anti-scientific denial is that it is favoured by social reactionaries pretending to be "progressives". At worst, that it is a sign of a cynical false-flag poseur.

See, there's no real choice -- we have to use our understanding of the natural world (including ourselves) to develop societies that ethically meet the needs and natural desires of their citizens.
 
When I say incest taboo I mean the comparative absence of sexual desire and activity between children who are brought up together and thus are likely to share genetic material - as in the example I quoted. The prohibitions against marriage etc of more distantly related individuals and their numerous exceptions - like first-cousin marriage for the purposes of inheritance - are a different matter entirely.

Additionaly: just because something develops later on doesn't automatically imply that it's learned. In fact quite a few instinctive aversions like the avoidance of vomit develop later on, but apparently independent of environmental factors.
 
BTW Gorsk, you never gave me straight answer on whether you're on nature, nuture or a fabulously complex combination of the two...altho from this I'm assuming you fall into the mostly nurture category...
 
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.:rolleyes: :p

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...;) :cool:
 
Hehe, yeah, I know. Have you read [at least a bit] "Watching the English"? There's a few of those there. But I think not easy to agree on - an anthropologist or not... ;)

Anything, from "Thou shalt not kill" onwards has exceptions from the rule...

But overall, more-or-less, I think we can agree, all great civilisations, cultures and religions have such "universals".

Of course, I agree with many of them. But how are they arrived at etc. - is another matter... :)
 
"Watching the English" was great! :)

I am a NZer so I did need a few pointers to work out what on earth was going on over here.
 
Tell me about it. I came from ex-YU... My, my, what a culture shock that was.:rolleyes: :D

Btw, I described that [my struggles with the English, how to "read them" etc.], as a response to Jonti's pertinent question earlier in this thread, I believe in the first three pages... ;) :)
 
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.:rolleyes: :p

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...;) :cool:
Click to expand...

Arguments from authority really are a bit embarrasssing, Gorski.

Arguments from research and expereince are a different matter but just simply saying someone is only a TV personality or whatever or an appeal to 'the facts' gets us nowhere.

If the argument was about iron-clad instincts ruling our lives contrasted to the idea that humans can change our behaviour or have it changed then all your examples would begin to make some sense.

However, my suspicion is that it is perfectly possible to have instincts as predispositions- sometimes weaker, sometimes stronger- which learned behaviour and conscious will can over-ride.

It is really an empirical question- are their drives in human beings that dispose us to certain forms of behaviour? Some thinkers of course define instinct as innate drives that cannot be over-ridden- if that is your definition then I would agree humans have no instincts! But does it get us anywhere?

However, the empirical research questions to decide whether or not there are powerful innate impulses are hard to formulate I think- I'm no expert. Perhaps someone else reading this is?

If there are powerful innate impulses it will surely help in making conscious decisions to over-ride powerful impusles that individuals and societies decide are less deisrable.
 
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?
Click to expand...
Just as a thought experiment, how about if you were contemplating living on another planet, amongst a very alien life form?

Some kind of intelligent mollusc, perhaps, like an octopus or squid, but of a species that evolution has adapted to be land dwellers. Clever things octupi, especially for molluscs, and those tentacles are surely good for getting to grips with things. Gotta be able to bang those rocks together somehow!

Anyway, these are language-using, land-based, city dwellers, enjoying the fruits of their civilisation's culture and technology. Just like us really, except they desport themselves in shallow water for romance, recreation, and reproduction. As with earth 's octupi, the milt is shed into the water to join the tiny eggs; later, minute larvae hatch and swim freely amongst the plankton of the oceans, eating and being eaten, the survivors growing and growing. Those that make it through to "adolescence" transmogrify into the adult and quit the sea for land, coming ashore in city bays across their planet, to join in the life of the adult form.

You plan to live among these creatures. Can evolutionary science provide any useful information about your future neighbours; or would you be wiser to listen only to their psychologists and social scientists?

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Cultural acquiescence towards nature
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Artaxerxes
Artaxerxes
D
Is self-destructive behaviour a natural response to the need for a cull of humans?
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
4K
Jay Park
Jay Park
2
Cultural Appropriation
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Celyn
C
B
Pleasure in British culture - medieval festivals to raves
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
phillm
phillm
JimW
Colour photos from China in the early days of the Cultural Revolution
Replies
2
Views
736
JimW
JimW
Back
Top Bottom