Relationships

[Dave2002]

This video by Alain de Botton is both entertaining and interesting - https://youtu.be/-EvvPZFdjyk

You don't have to agree with everything he says - after all - he's not even 64 yet!

[jayne lee wilson]

This video by Alain de Botton is both entertaining and interesting - https://youtu.be/-EvvPZFdjyk

You don't have to agree with everything he says - after all - he's not even 64 yet!

Haven't watched this yet but..... first thing I turn to in the Saturday Guardian or Observer ...... Annalisa Barbieri and Philippa Perry....

Why do we feel what we feel? Can we do anything about it?

[Serial_Apologist]

Haven't watched this yet but..... first thing I turn to in the Saturday Guardian or Observer ...... Annalisa Barbieri and Philippa Perry....

Why do we feel what we feel? Can we do anything about it?

To start off with, survival - the baby, dependent, vulnerable and endowed with a brain that delays the capacity of its organism to look after itself longer than any other organism, thrown into a world in which its capacity for integrating all those inter-dependent aspects of its being it is told from birth, are by nature mutually incompatible, are put at the disposal of a so-called civilisation whose perpetuation is maintained on non-sustainable principles inimical to the fulfilment of its potential.

[vinteuil]

.

... reductive, serial, seriously reductive.

Enuff to put one orf being a marxist....


.

[Richard Barrett]

... reductive, serial, seriously reductive.

Evolutionary psychology is indeed a deeply reactionary way to think about human behaviour and relations. Important here is Lewontin, Rose and Kamin's Not in Our Genes, a critique of biological determinism by an evolutionary geneticist, a neurobiologist, and a psychologist all committed to a socialist vision of human potential - from the preface: "We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just—a socialist—society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race."

[french frank]

I'm rather surprised to find scientists approaching this sort of question from a preformed ideology in the first place. In both archaeology and historical studies current theory encourages academics to approach their studies with an awareness that they live in their own time, they have their own experiences and opinions, and these are not necessarily a sound basis for an interpretation of the past.

[Richard Barrett]

I'm rather surprised to find scientists approaching this sort of question from a preformed ideology in the first place

If you read the book you'd see that this question is addressed.

[Bryn]

Evolutionary psychology is indeed a deeply reactionary way to think about human behaviour and relations. Important here is Lewontin, Rose and Kamin's Not in Our Genes, a critique of biological determinism by an evolutionary geneticist, a neurobiologist, and a psychologist all committed to a socialist vision of human potential - from the preface: "We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just—a socialist—society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race."

A few months ago, a mutual drummer friend was waxing lyrical about E. O. Wilson's Consilience, which, admittedly, I had not read. I was shocked by his enthusiasm for someone I had considered to be of a similarly reactionary outlook. I expressed my surprise to our friend. I then decided to have a look at the Wilson tome and found it to be a rather different animal from what I had expected. Though Wilson has stuck to his guns regarding "memes", he seems to have taken on board some of the criticisms of "Sociobiology". Any comments?

[french frank]

If you read the book you'd see that this question is addressed.

For a start, I've read the very full article on Wikipedia which quotes the various critical opinions (i.e. pro and con) in some detail from people more qualified to judge the work than I am. My initial reaction seems to have been the same as that of the anthropologist Vernon Reynolds who 'maintained, in opposition to Lewontin et al., that a single "committed political position" cannot be used to evaluate or criticize science … He also found their book enjoyable reading.' I accept that it's a serious contribution to the subject which, however, is not one that interests me enough to read the book.

[Bryn]

For a start, I've read the very full article on Wikipedia which quotes the various critical opinions (i.e. pro and con) in some detail from people more qualified to judge the work than I am. My initial reaction seems to have been the same as that of the anthropologist Vernon Reynolds who 'maintained, in opposition to Lewontin et al., that a single "committed political position" cannot be used to evaluate or criticize science … He also found their book enjoyable reading.' I accept that it's a serious contribution to the subject which, however, is not one that interests me enough to read the book.

The authors of Not in Our Genes set out their socio-political world outlook in advance Their critique is of those who fail to do so. They thus set about demonstrating the ideological underpinnings of the targets of their criticism.

[Richard Barrett]

A few months ago, a mutual drummer friend was waxing lyrical about E. O. Wilson's Consilience, which, admittedly, I had not read. I was shocked by his enthusiasm for someone I had considered to be of a similarly reactionary outlook. I expressed my surprise to our friend. I then decided to have a look at the Wilson tome and found it to be a rather different animal from what I had expected. Though Wilson has stuck to his guns regarding "memes", he seems to have taken on board some of the criticisms of "Sociobiology". Any comments?

I did actually read it, and found it more "sympathique" than I expected. I'm afraid though that I don't really remember much about it apart from that.

As for Lewontin et al: the idea that there is any human activity, including the pursuit of pure science, that isn't affected by social structures and relations, is exactly the kind of mistaken and/or reactionary thinking that is at the core of where that book proceeds from; and let's not forget also that Marx (and those who continue the evolution of socialist thinking) was concerned that social structures and relations should be treated as "scientifically" as possible, rather than beginning from the standpoint of some particular class interest.

[Serial_Apologist]

.

... reductive, serial, seriously reductive.

Enuff to put one orf being a marxist....


.

Cor blimey, what did I miss out???

(Oh yes: class ).

[french frank]

I wonder what the reaction (here) is to this statement: is it just?

"At the height of the controversy, during the 1970s to 1980s, the debate was highly ideologised. In Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature (1984), Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leon Kamin criticise "genetic determinism" from a Marxist framework, arguing that "Science is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology ... If biological determinism is a weapon in the struggle between classes, then the universities are weapons factories, and their teaching and research faculties are the engineers, designers, and production workers." The debate thus shifted away from whether heritable traits exist to whether it was politically or ethically permissible to admit their existence. The authors deny this, requesting that evolutionary inclinations be discarded in ethical and political discussions regardless of whether they exist or not."

Doesn't the title "Not in Our Genes" appear (at least) to be in danger of reviving the so-called Nature v Nurture dichotomy by opting to (arbitrarily?) exclude "nature" in matters of ethics and politics - being the only areas which "matter" in the ideological debate?

[Dave2002]

This video by Alain de Botton is both entertaining and interesting - https://youtu.be/-EvvPZFdjyk

You don't have to agree with everything he says - after all - he's not even 64 yet!

More about AdB - from a decade ago https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...tton-interview

[Richard Barrett]

The authors deny this, requesting that evolutionary inclinations be discarded in ethical and political discussions regardless of whether they exist or not.

That would be a crassly reductive argument indeed, had the authors actually put it forward, which I don't believe they did.

Doesn't the title "Not in Our Genes" appear (at least) to be in danger of reviving the so-called Nature v Nurture dichotomy by opting to (arbitrarily?) exclude "nature" in matters of ethics and politics - being the only areas which "matter" in the ideological debate?

It's just a title (like The Selfish Gene it eschews precision in favour of snappiness). Both Lewontin and Rose made decisive contributions to genetics and evolutionary theory, so representing them as "excluding nature" is to ignore most of their scientific work, which of course they themselves don't do.

Arguments from "human nature" (with the addition of "evidence" from genetics according to taste) are of course used to justify all kinds of things, from class structures and wealth inequality to racism and even genocide. That in itself ought to give pause for thought as to whether such arguments hold water more objectively, especially given that "human nature" itself can be shown to have undergone some quite profound changes over the existence of our species.