Big assumption.
Joanna
Samuel Waite wrote:
>Similar ideas are advanced in the book Unto Others:
>The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior by
>Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson. I recommend it.
>
>I've avoided posting in the "Darwinian Left" thread
>because I prefer to lurk and didn't want to get drawn
>into a protracted debate with any Singer sympathizers.
> The topic interests me a great deal, however, and I
>try to keep abreast of current developments.
>
>Shortly after I first got involved with radical
>politics, I became aware of what I came to call the
>"human nature excuse" -- we can't have a more just,
>free society because it's "against human nature".
>Partly out of curiosity and partly out of a desire to
>amass ammunition against such arguments, I started
>spending a lot of time reading up on this stuff.
>
>My research led me to a great skepticism toward
>biologistic explanations of human behavior, which I
>maintain. I read The Blank Slate after being assured
>by everyone from The Nation to the National Review
>that it was the best possible case for biologism that
>could be made. If this is true, then I can only
>assume that in 20 years, most of what's now called
>evolutionary psychology will have gone the way of the
>dodo.
>
>One scholar whose reaction to that book was very
>similar to my own is psychologist Hank Schlinger,
>whose article "The Almost-Blank Slate: Making a Case
>for Human Nurture" in the current issue of Skeptic I
>also recommend.
>
>--- Kevin Robert Dean <qualiall at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The sample this study used was small, so take it for
>>what it's worth in these current discussions.
>>
>>Contact: Meg Sullivan
>>megs at college.ucla.edu
>>310-825-1046
>>University of California - Los Angeles
>>
>>UCLA study points to evolutionary roots of altruism,
>>moral outrage
>>If you've ever been tempted to drop a friend who
>>tended to freeload, then you have experienced a key
>>to one of the biggest mysteries facing social
>>scientists, suggests a study by UCLA
>>anthropologists.
>>"If the help and support of a community
>>significantly affects the well-being of its members,
>>then the threat of withdrawing that support can keep
>>people in line and maintain social order," said
>>Karthik Panchanathan, a UCLA graduate student whose
>>study appears in Nature. "Our study offers an
>>explanation of why people tend to contribute to the
>>public good, like keeping the streets clean. Those
>>who play by the rules and contribute to the public
>>good will be included and outcompete freeloaders."
>>
>>This finding -- at least in part -- may help explain
>>the evolutionary roots of altruism and human anger
>>in the face of uncooperative behavior, both of which
>>have long puzzled economists and evolutionary
>>biologists, he said.
>>
>>"If you put two dogs together, and one dog does
>>something inappropriate, the other dog doesn't care,
>>so long as it doesn't get hurt," Panchanathan said.
>>"It certainly wouldn't react with moralistic
>>outrage. Likewise, it wouldn't experience elation if
>>it saw one dog help out another dog. But humans are
>>very different; we're the only animals that display
>>these traits."
>>
>>The study, which uses evolutionary game theory to
>>model human behavior in small social groups, is the
>>first to show that cooperation in the context of the
>>public good can be sustained when freeloaders are
>>punished through social exclusion, said co-author
>>Robert Boyd, a UCLA professor of anthropology and
>>fellow associate in UCLA's Center for Behavior,
>>Evolution and Culture.
>>Full:
>>
>>
>>
>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uoc--usp112404.php
>
>
>>___________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
>http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>