Monday, November 17, 2008

On sociobiology

posted by Brit

Way back when, there used to be this thing called the Nature-Nurture Debate. That's long extinct, but its close cousin, Sociobiology, is still evolving alarmingly.

Sociobiology is the awkward antechamber where geneticists, anthropologists and artists get cross while trying not to bump into each other on the way to their respective lecture-rooms. Nick Cohen writes succinctly and well about it here.

The problem, as Nick explains, is that while some sociobiological explanations of human behaviour instinctively make sense and are, indeed, sensible (eg. "why old men desire beautiful young women and why rich old men are more successful in bedding beautiful young women than poor old men"), there are a lot of zealous sociobiologists keen to explain every tittle and jot of human interaction by reference to what our distant ancestors were getting up to with unfortunate caribou in the privacy of their own caves.

There was an example of this on Start the Week recently, when psychologist Susan Blackmore tried to suggest that the concept of "fairness" must have a genetic origin because the world's children universally cry "That's not fair!" when something goes against them. This forced Raymond Geuss to point out that while whingeing when you don't get your way may be a childhood universality, an appeal to "fairness" is a curiously Anglospheric ploy, the concept being closely linked to England's cultural and judicial history.

Unfortunately, this all leads to a further problem, whereby the absurdity of some of the sociobiological 'explanations' - and, I would argue, the joy with which mainstream journalists seize on them - opens up a lot of scoffing room and allows evolutionary sceptics to dismiss everything as a "Just So Story", and thus throw all the babies out with the bathwater.

By 'evolutionary sceptic', by the way, I here refer to the kind of scientific illiterate who thinks Intelligent Design is a valid academic subject. I don't know where these people get that notion, but I expect there's a genetic explanation.

16 comments:

  1. Fairness, hah! Have you got kids, Brit? I'll tell you what you learn quickly -- there's not a toddler anywhere who is a communist. One of their first words is "Mine!" and they DON'T like to share. I think it's capitalism that's genetic, not justice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do not believe that Intelligent Design is a valid academic subject and object to your implication that I do.

    You, sir, shall be hearing from my solicitor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. meh!

    (d'oh!)

    but a good post (thumb up)

    surely if capitalism was genetic it'd be ''Mine! but yours for a fiver, whatever that is.''

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, and David proves that the urge to threaten legal action is genetically hard-wired into all Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If intelligent design is all (or nearly all) embracing then where are the blueprints for John Sargent or Ed Balls.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "an appeal to "fairness" is a curiously Anglospheric ploy, the concept being closely linked to England's cultural and judicial history."

    No it isn't. The Bible is chock full of people complaining because life ain't fair. And God is basically the epitome of fairness. (Except when he isn't, hence why they needed the New Testament to explain why.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your beef is with Raymond Geiss, Neuroskeptic.

    According to him, there is no word in, for example, Ancient Greek that translates comfortably to 'fairness' and in other modern European languages the word is taken from the English - eg. the German for fairness is 'fairness'.

    Possibly you read your Bible in English.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well I rarely use the word "fairness" myself. It's basically an abstract philosophical term. I only use it when I'm having discussions like this! But I say "it's unfair", and I recognise the same sentiments in the Bible.

    Point taken though.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Susan Blackmore. One of life's reliable signposts: which ever way she's pointing, go the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, see also Greer, Toynbee and (so this list doesn't appear too sexist) Monbiot.

    In this instance, Blackmore was wittering on about memes in the most uninteresting way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Monbiot? That's not fair. He's not that bad.

    A better example would be Ziauddin Sardar. Although then you'd be accused of being sexist and racist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Moonbat, not a bad man, just a numpty and certainly well worth ignoring. Polly Toynbee and Germaine Greer are getting on in years a bit, so we shall only have to endure their drivel for another decade or so (to take the long view). Johann Hari however will most likely be talking utter bollocks until I'm in the grave, which is a depressing thought.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wouldn't be so sure, Vernon. Toynbee's got decades in her, and I have this strange feeling that Greer is immortal. She might even be a transhuman.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now you've gone and made me cry.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I just checked and Polly is in fact about to turn 62, while Germaine Greer is teetering on the verge of 70. I suppose Greer could do a Mailer and keep spouting drivel into her 80s, but I don't know- another ten years and hopefully they'll both feel age slowing them down. Polly can spend more time in Tuscany, while Germaine can reminisce about the time she banged a member of MC5.

    Anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Really, Toynbee is 62? She looks good for it.

    ReplyDelete