I don't understand the question. Big brains apparently enhance adaptive fitness and enable us to think about explanations for human behavior. Biological explanations, which are consistent, in my view with historical materialist ones, are among these, so that's why we come up with them. Whether any explanation is true or justified depends respectively on the state of the world and the nature of the evidence.
This is pretty obvious so I am not sure it is what you are looking for. My guess, perhaps mistaken, is that you are attempting to hint at a subtle attack on SB explanations are vulgar ideology. However, this will only work for ideological SB explanations, arguments that uphold the status quo, which the ones I have been advancing do not, and even then it will not reach to the truth and justification of such explanations.
It might be true that our biology is such that sharply egalitarian variations from the status quo are not very likely or would come at a costs we would be unwilling to pay. I do not think kit is true; at least I think we lack evidence for any such conservative hypotheses, but we cannot rule it out a priori. Still I think the burden of those advancing such conservative, status-quo-justifying SB explanations is on their proponents, and I am not one of those.
However, I have been arguing no such thing. Instead I have been suggesting inevitably speculative explanation for a capacity with an indisputably huge though not exclusively biological component -- the ability of women to experience sexual pleasure. How that is ideological, justificatory of the status quo, contributory to male supremacy, or oppressive of women, beats me. And not in any fun way.
--- Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 25 January 2007 18:23, andie
> nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> > For what?
> > --- Willy Greenfields
> <filthydirtyunwashed at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Is there a sociobiological explanation here too?
>
> I would like to know if there's a sociobiological
> explanation
> for sociobiology. I can think of a
> historical-materialist one --
> but hey, that's easy, any of us can do that.
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news