^^^^^ CB: Not you, but I think those who named "sociobiology" did.
^^^^^^ I prefer "sociobiology" to "evolutionary psychology," insofar as those are supposed to be the same thing because the latter has too individualistic a ring; the former at least underlines human sociality.
^^^^^ CB; True.
^^^
* * * *
I wouldn't say that "our nuture dominates our nature because we are social" because I do not identify "nature" with "biology in abstraction from environment," a concept I have always insisted is incoherent.
^^^^^ CB: I don't know. Some of our nature/biology transcends a variety of environments. For example, we are bipedal in a lot of different environments.
^^^^^^
Our "nature" is the set of dispositions (some but not all more or less genetically based) we have to manifest traits and behaviors _in certain environments_. It is our nature to be selfish -- in competitive environments. It is out nature to be unselfish -- in cooperative environments. You can't leave out the environment from the concept of our nature. It's built in. It is therefore error to say that the environment or nurture dominates, trumps our "nature." It's part of our nature.
^^^^^^^ CB: "Nurture" is an aspect of our human "environment" that trains our behavior. The non-human environment may train us too. But by "nature" I would refer to aspects of traits and behaviors derived from genes uninfluenced by either environment. For example, our hearts beat by nature, not based on some training by other people or by learning from experience. Nurture is our experience with other humans that shapes our behavior. Our hearts beat entirely by nature, with no nurture.
"It is our 'nature' to be selfish in a competitive environment" sounds tautological in the bad sense. Competitive with whom ? Other humans or other species ? Anyway, humans are often more "social" than other species in an environment where they are in predator/prey competition with other species. Ancient humans would have been socially hunting prey and defending against predators, in "teams", not "selfishly", although it_WAS in individuals' self interest to do these things socially rather than individually. Two heads are better than one was our species motto originally.
The way you express it here, I don't agree with your claim that we can't leave out the environment from the concept of nature. Some aspects of our nature express themselves over a range of "environments". Our hearts beat in the artic and in the tropics, in U.S. culture and in Bushman culture.
Compared with other species human behavior is shaped by nurture (culture) more. And humans have a greater ability to nurture modifications of some genetically based behaviors more than other species
^^^^^
I have a (still-unpublished) paper on this that I can send to anyone who wants it; I'd appreciate comments if anyone has them. The paper, which I haven't done anything with for a bit but which I have been working on on and off for almost 20 years, proves hard to publish because 9a) people with biological backgrounds regard it as too obvious and self-evident to be worth publishing, and (b) people on the left regard it as a reactionary defense of the status qua, while (c) people on the right hate the fact that it argues that human nature does not, so far as we know, stand in the way of social change. So it ticks off everyone.
^^^^ CB; I'll look at it if you want.
^^^^
Meanwhile people -- even you, Charles -- keep making this false nature/nurture opposition. I really do have to get the paper published, not that it will stop this persistent error, but it may help reduce its incidence.
^^^^^^ CB; The nature/nurture distinction I make above is true. Levins and Lewontin's book says specific characteristics are _Not in Our Genes_, not that _nothing_ is in our genes.