

Scientist at Work - Edward O. Wilson - echair
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wils.html?em&ex=1216440000&en=626b5e1816f9b318&ei=5070

======
mynameishere
I remember getting into an argument with a sociology professor (in hindsight,
probably a Marxist) who stated that there are no instinctual behaviors. I gave
a simple example--babies suckling--that just angered him more.

Obviously, all behavior is partly shaped by instinct. But the connection is so
non-deterministic that it's pretty easy to completely deny it. Sometimes the
dog goes to his foodbowl at 2:00, sometimes at 2:10. Or, sometimes he smacks
his lips, sometimes not. Ergo, the dog does not have an instintual urge to
eat. At least not in a particular way. If nothing else, you could probably
teach a dog, BF Skinner-like, to have anorexia nervosa. Behavior _can be
engineered_. No doubt about it.

The problem, of course, is that personality qualities are partly inherited
just like intelligence. This is problematic for a couple reasons:

1\. The practice of measuring intelligence is well-developed and the results
have been carefully studied. This is not the case with vague behaviors like
"hardworkingness".

2\. Traditionally, when coming up with excuses for why different groups have
different levels of intelligence, other types of behavior are brought up:
"Those Asian students spend all their time studying. Of course they succeed."
This suggests that studiousness is the prescription for fixing bad students.
But, in fact, that very studiousness is largely shaped by genetics.
Sociobiology kills off the last fantasies of Marxism.

~~~
logjam
Uh, no.

May I recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to you.

That book effectively _destroys_ any idea that studiousness, or intelligence,
at the group level (like your example of "Asians", whatever the hell "Asians"
means), has _anything_ to do with genetics.

~~~
mynameishere
_has anything to do with genetics_

Well, I would never say genetics is 100 percent responsible for any products
of the mind. You seem to think that genetics is zero percent responsible. This
is an untenable position, and not one Jared Diamond would hold either, at
least not when he was researching the importance of testicle sizes of
different races [1]. (You have to actually read it to get a laugh. Anyone have
a nature login?)

I am so tired of Jared Diamond. It seems like there's always some sheister,
Stephen Jay Gould, or Diamond, or _somebody_ who propagandizes effectively
enough to come up every time a subject is raised.

[1]
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6062/abs/320488a0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6062/abs/320488a0.html)

------
Alex3917
Scientists have been in favor of group selection since the late 1800s. I don't
see what's new about this at all. Here's a quote from 1902 that implies the
existence of group selection:

"Competition [...] is limited among animals to exception periods. [...] Better
conditions are created by the elimation of competition by means of mutual aid
and mutual support. [...] "Don't Compete" -- competition is always injurious
to the species, and you have plenty of resources to avoid it!" That is the
tendency of nature, not always realized in full, but always present. That is
the watchword which comes to us from the bush, the forest, the river, the
ocean. "Therefore combine -- practice mutual aid!" That is what nature teaches
us." -- Pter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid

------
byrneseyeview
Related: <http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-ants.html>

