martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/20/84)
A new book has appeared called Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature by R. C. Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leon J. Kamin. It is not scholarly but supports the environmentalist position. The reviewer in the N.Y. Times says it's good. The reviewer and apparently the authors never realized that nowadays the genetic determinist position is the progressive point of view. Changing the environment to produce good woman mathematicians might be hard. However within one generation, making everyone mathematical geniuses through genetic engineering might be easy.
kim@emory.UUCP (Kim Wallen {Psychology}) (05/20/84)
I have to disagree with Mr. Martillo that the genetic determinism point of view is progressive. The progressive (i.e. synthetic) view is that genotypes only set predispositions and that a genotype acting ina given environment produces the phenotype which is what we interact and deal with. For some traits the phenotypic variance that can be produced by the environment is relatively small and for other traits it is extremely large, but for all traits there is some environment which prevents the expression of a given genotype (usually lethal). One example, an individual has a genetic predispostion to have blond hair, but only if exposed to x minutes/day of sunshine. If that genotype is not exposed to the appropriate environment the person has brown hair and looks no different from any other brown-haired person who may or may not have the genotype for "sun-blonding". It is a rather antiquated position to talk of genetic determinism in regard to behavior, just as it is antiquated to talk of pure environmental determinism. The rise of E.O. Wilson's brand of Sociobiology has unfortunately given rise once-again to these outdated views of animals responding strictly to their geneotypes as if the environment was not a critical player in the expression of genotypes. Just remember, no one has ever seen a genotype, just the expression of one in a particular environment. Kim Wallen; Psychology Dept.; Emory University;Atlanta, GA akgua!emory!kim
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/21/84)
I read Sociobiology and I saw no evidence of a purely genetic determinist point of view. I suspect most of the people who flamed about E.O. Wilson never read his writings. As for progressive, I consider a point of view progressive if it offers a potentially successful solution. In a generation or two, scientists will probably be most less desirable traits through genetic engineering. The nurture adherents have had three generations at least to eliminate race as a predictor of success in intellectual endeavors and have failed abysmally. Clinging to unsuccessful theories hardly strikes me as progressive. At least in view of the new technology the genetic determinists offer something new to try.