This is getting clumsy to track. OL98 isn't much good at it.
Let me try to capture our differences.
(1) I think evolutionary psychology has vague predictive power, weak because
of our limited knowledge of history. You think is has no predictive power
whatever, since, by simply altering the history, one can explain any human
psychological trait one way for another. To which I respond by saying that
some histories seem much more plausible than others, to which you respond,
not good enough
(1b) I think it's a strength of EP that it predicts both selfishness and
altruism (when such is good for shared genes). You think it's a glaring
weakness, showing that it just predicts X and non-X -- in other words, it
makes no real predictions at all.
(2) I think it's very plausible that human sexual promiscuity has a
significant genetic basis (not that it's "simply a matter of genes" -- I
take it neither of us think that's true of any human actions), given the
genetic basis of sexuality and the commonness of promiscuity in genetically
very similar (and indeed, nearly all) animals, as well as the theoretical
arguments given by EP. You think the genetic basis for sexual promiscuity
is very dubious, and would need strong independent evidence for this before
you could take seriously a theory that would purport to explain it. (I'm
curious: do you agree that males have a strong tendency for promiscuity,
regardless of whether it's significantly biological or genetic in origin or
not?)
(3) I think one can distinguish stronger EP claims, such as those having to
do with promiscuity (or older men w/ younger women, or the sexual abuse
rates of stepfathers wrt stepchildren versus natural fathers and natural
children [which according to Dawkins was a novel prediction, rather than
merely a postdictive explanation], parental sacrifice on behalf of kids)
from weaker, more speculative claims (e.g., the hypothesis the rape
developed as a brutal reproductive strategy). You think they're all more or
less of a piece, all worthless.
(4) I think that if something is shown to have a natural basis in human
nature or our evolutionary history, there's no intrinsic connection with its
moral status. You think that if something is shown to be a natural part of
human nature -- e.g., promiscuity, or rape -- that that justifies it.
(Therefore, since rape and promiscuity are not justified, they must not be
natural. [I'm not sure if you're just expressing a fear that people
will -think- it justifies it {I can understand that fear}, or if you're
claiming it would -in fact- justify it {that's less understandable to me},
or both.])
(5) (related to (4)) You think EP leads naturally to a justification of
racism, eugenics, abortion, rape, and so forth. I think you're confusing a
theory's (hypothetically) explaining something bad with its (hypothetically)
justifying something bad.
Now I'm not at all sure I have your views right, except that you think
evolutionary psychology is just worthless and apparently dangerous. (That
was certainly the reaction back in the 70s to it. Feminists and Marxists
[e.g., Gould] in particular were outraged by it. They still are, perhaps to
a lesser extent, but it's gaining a fair amount of momentum regardless.)
To save time, how's 'bout we just agree to disagree here. We're getting
into speculative matters that I don't have time to try to make more concrete
now, though I'd enjoy that a lot. And obviously I don't think EP is the
whole story of human nature (certain not metaphysically speaking), but I
strongly suspect it's a significant part. (I could be very wrong in that
suspicion, though.)
As always, thanks for your thoughtful comments. Even when I disagree, I
think you raise points well worth considering. And you can have the last
word -- my gift to you. :^> (Unless you say something really outrageous.
;^> )
John
Mike wrote:
> Mike:
>
> > Evolutionary psychology used to be called sociobiology. Now,
> sociobiology
> > explains altruistic behavior through a darwinian lens. It has even been
> > invoked to explain the genetic basis of homosexuality and abortion.
> > Thus, what do we have? A "theory" that explains both selfish
> and selfless
> > acts. A "theory" that explains both acts that increase fecundity
> > and decrease
> > fecundity. In short, a "theory" that explains anything and
> > everything, thus
> > making no implications about what we should find in the world. It's
> > plastic wrap, and since plastic wrap can be molded around any form,
> > some people might confuse this property and think the plastic wrap
> > is the cause of the forms.
>
> John:
>
> >As with any theory or hypothesis, in any given case it can be
> over-extended,
> >or weak arguments can be portrayed as strong, or there can be serious
> >disagreement about the merits of the case. But this doesn't imply that
> >there's no strong substance there.
>
> No, but what it implies to me is that there is no reason to think
> there is any strong substance there. If a theory can explain a
> state of affairs that exists only in the imagination just as well as
> the state of affairs that exists, one begins to suspect the theory
> is nothing more than an ad hoc approach to reality.
>
> >E.g., how is it a criticism to say that a theory explains both
> selfish and
> >selfless acts, given (and it is a given) that the explanation is
> >theoretically non-arbitrary? (It's based on maximizing genetic progeny.)
>
> If a theory explains both selfish and selfless acts, it loses its
> sharp edge and becomes incapable of making predictions about
> what we should find. It's nice stuff to speculate about, but it's not
> very good science. Coming up with convoluted scenarios that
> converge on "maximizing genetic progeny" is always possible.
> But when you have a theory that explains abortion or homosexuality
> as examples of maximizing genetic progeny, just call me skeptical.
>
> Mike:
>
> > Let me play evolutionary psychologist. Let's pretend men, in general,
> > did not seek out as many sex contacts as possible. Would evolutionary
> > psychology be refuted? No. One could argue populations that
> > did not discourage promiscuity entailed intratribal strife that meant
> > such populations were less likely to contribute the human gene pool
> > (they could not compete well against tribes that did practice fidelity).
> > Over time, the promiscuous tribes would be replaced by the chaste
> > tribes. And voila - a darwinian explanation for why men don't
> > seek out as many sex contacts as possible.
> >
> > So you see, it doesn't matter what we find out there. That's why
> > I don't see any real "insight" from evolutionary psychology.
>
> John:
>
> >I think you've inadvertently shown the kind of insights that we'd gain.
> > Suppose men were as you hypothesized as above, at least wrt
> their nature.
> >(I.e., suppose those who said -current- male sexual proclivities
> are simply
> >a matter of culture, perhaps a form of partriarchal gender
> oppression, were
> >right.)
> > Then from evolutionary psychology/sociobiology, we could
> conclude that the
> >history of humanity more or less continuously included extremely strong
> >social or biological pressures that more or less continuously
> prevented men
> >with natural (i.e., genetically induced) tendencies toward
> promiscuity from
> >reproducing. (This pressure could take a lot of different forms: a
> >consistently applied death sentence for adultery, the effective
> >stigmatization by nearly all women of sexual promiscuous males,
> or death of
> >the children of promiscuous males.)
> > We could then explore history to see if that appears to be a correct
> >conclusion: is that the way things were?
>
> Sure, but that's the catch. How does evolutionary psychology
> plan on using
> history to validate its proposals? Can we really measure the
> fecundity rates
> of pre-human and early human populations? Where are the data that
> show promiscuous males really did contribute more offspring? I understand
> the folk-wisdom-type appeal of the argument, but when the same logic can
> turn and also explain things like abortion and homosexuality, there is
> no longer to think such folk wisdom is insightful.
>
> Let's not forget that attempts to attribute behaviors to genes have always
> been very fuzzy at best. So why think promiscuous behavior is genetically
> endowed? After all, environmental and cultural conditioning are likewise
> inherited.
>
> >(Alternately, we could conclude that it's difficult to genetically encode
> >sexual aggressiveness or promiscuity in humans, but our genetic
> proximity to
> >the broader animal kingdom makes that rather suspect.)
>
> Indeed, which is why once one buys into the sociobiological explanation
> for the male sex drive, the thesis that rape is also in our genes is only
> a modest and simple next step.
>
> >Now I agree that history isn't particle physics or molecular biology:
> >there's a lot more "best guesses" and intuitive judgment involved. But
> >that's not the same as saying there's just nothing there.
>
> I'm not claiming there is nothing there. I simply think there is no
> reason to think anything is there.
>
> > So does it appear through history that aggressive male sexual appetite
> >(when appearing) has been universally rendered impotent by culture or
> >biology? It doesn't look like it to me at all; but I'm no historian.
>
> But is there any evidence that the aggressive male appetite is genetically
> programmed?
>
> > Now obviously there are -some- limits on male promiscuity, social and
> >biological, but they don't seem extremely strong throughout history and
> >across cultures. -IF- that's right, and if such sexuality is genetically
> >influenced, then the male promiscuity (or whatever is encoded by
> promiscuous
> >man's genes) will spread through the gene pool.
> > No?
>
> What makes you think male promiscuity is simply a matter of a
> gene (or genes)
> spreading through a gene pool? Ought we not first figure out to what
> extent male promiscuity is genetically influenced? I suspect
> it's far more
> complicated that this (although I appreciate the dazzling influence of
> the simplicity of darwinian just so logic). But doesn't this
> thesis predict
> that, over time, males should be more and more promiscuous? A positive
> feedback loop would result, where more males would be promiscuous and
> mutations that lead to more promiscuity would spread. I'm no historian
> either,
> but I don't see any evidence that promiscuity has increased over human
> history.
>
> Here's how I see it. Since humans are not slaves to their genetics and
> environment, yet darwinian evolution depends on such slavery, there is
> no reason to think darwinian evolution nicely accounts for human
> behavioral
> or cognitive features. We too often freely choose to do things that would
> thwart the simple biological phenomena of natural selection. Biologists
> recognized this a long time ago and sought to do something about it.
> It was called eugenics.
>
> Mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 00:47:45 EST