> Sociobiologists' fixation on fertility is
> a good example of their superficial
> understanding of evolutionary theory.
The problem with so-so-biology is not its fixation on biological factors in explaining social characteristics - which is quite kosher in my book - but its use of ex post facto rationalizations instead of empirically supported propositions.
There is nothing wrong with claiming a connection between chances of survival and social traits. If a society places a high value on, say, the musical ability, (assuming it is a genetically transmitted trait) and which causes its members to take a good care of children with such an ability while neglecting others, this may potentially lead to a greater incidence of musical talent in that society.
But to demonstrate that, one needs to empirically establish that musically talented children have consistently had a better chance of survival for a prolonged time period in that society. Needles to say that this borders on impossibility due to the lack of data. However, arguing that ex post facto does not do the trick because it follows a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). While it is true that if musically talented kids had a better chance of survival (antecedent), the incidence of musical ability would be higher in that society (consequent), it does not follow that higher incidence of musical ability in a society must have been a result of higher survival rates for kids with such abilities.
My problem with so-so biology is that while some of such fallacies are pretty benign and even funny, others have been used as ammunition in vicious classist or racist propaganda. Thus the danger of the more benign forms is that it inculcates the public with this kind of fallacious thinking, and making it look 'normal' and more 'acceptable' - which makes it easier to sneak in the more malignant varieties.
Wojtek