rmr@chefchu.SGI.COM (Robert Reimann) (01/12/88)
In article <355@rruxa.UUCP>, mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: > Sociobiology > _starts_ with the notion that complex social behaviors are biologically > defined (i.e., chemically, genetically specifiable), and then goes on > to study how this "fact" is demonstrated in the behavior of ants and > humans. The resulting "findings" are then applied to women, > minorities, and new "biologically (genetically)-defined" out-groups, > such as people who commit crimes (an alleged heritable tendency -- > no social impact on people's behavior here!) or people who are diagnosed > as mentally ill (again, an alleged heritable tendency, with no > social component). And _then_ these conclusions can have impact > directly upon people's lives. Herrnstein proposed ending head start > programs because of the alleged heritability of stupidity in blacks. > A number of psychological conditions have been assumed to be heritable > -- and therefore suitable for forced sterilization as well as > indefinite confinement. Recent work has shown these "truths" to be > in error -- why were people so willing to accept them for so long? > And at such cost to the victims? I agree entirely with your premise that bad scientific method leads to erroneous results, which in a sensitive area like human behavior (where everybody becomes an instant expert because the amount of hard, unbiased data is minimal) can lead to abuse by those who stand to gain by it. However, your assumptions about the present state of behavioral genetics is in error. No biologist in his/her right mind would *ever* say that complex human behaviors are determined by genotype. There is an important difference between genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism) and phenotype (the *expression* of that genotype in the individual). A phenotype is in many ways "determined" by the genotype, but it is also "determined" in large part by the environment both pre- and post-natally. The most one could say about human behaviors is that they are genetically influenced, and the amount of this influence (which obviously varies) is subject to scientific investigation. > If you believe that complex behaviors can be directly reduced to > genetically-defined traits, then those traits can be linked to other > genetically-defined traits, including sex. And if nature has linked > those traits that way, then what can the poor behavioral geneticist > or sociobiologist do about it? This is, of course, based on a fallacy; evolution says *nothing* about the future. In fact, evolution is a process of change, and humans are in the unique position of being able to plan their own destiny. Just because we possess certain characteristics now, it doesn't mean our descendants will possess them; they will only if it remains advantageous (in the long run). For instance, our ancestors had larger jaws and teeth, and thicker skulls. Now all that remains of this are "wisdom" teeth. > The "scientific study" of the "heritability of IQ" (or of other behavioral > "traits") is rife with suspicious or obviously-flawed methodologies, > not to mention outright falsification on a massive scale -- Gould, > Rose, Rose, Lewontin, and Kamin have made this case much better > than I could, and in very accessible forms (go read them if you think > that science in this area is unbiased). Absolutely true, although these authors also tend to promote their own biases as well. Moreover, these articles are popularized and directed at the general public; they contain little that any respectable biologist couldn't have told you. > Gould and Kamin have been particularly strong on the point that > the usual scientific standards are weakened or ignored when someone's > allegedly scientific work supports a societal prejudice. They've > documented this repeated trend in many many cases, for a total of > hundreds of pages of clear, readable prose. I urge you to have a look. Unfortunately, the "soft" sciences are rife with sloppy procedures and non-rigorous experimentation. Soon enough biology will have progressed to a point where the necessary rigor exists to investgate the human genome exhaustively. > Put differently: Many scientists claim that they are results-driven -- > i.e., "the data made me do it" (where "it" can mean the sociobiologist's > conclusion that certain behavioral traits are heritable, that they > _have_been_ inherited differentially in western society, and that this > "natural order" is the way things are meant to be -- therefore, it must > be Good, or at least inevitable). Ugh... I wish you wouldn't put such words in "sociobiologists'" mouths, they really wouldn't say such things. > Scientists are as > responsible as the rest of us for the choices they make -- in how they > analyze certain problems, and in whether they choose to investigate > certain questions at all. Those choices are fair topics for debate, > I think, and for critical examination of social consequences. I agree... mostly. Scientists have a responsibility to seek truth through rigorous and unbiased analysis. I am troubled slightly by the second clause in your sentence, it smacks a bit of censorship to me. I do not believe in ignoring truth because it is not expedient, even painful truth. Society will change with new knowledge; such knowledge will either bury us or sustain us, but who can tell if the knowledge is left unknown? > Michael Muller Robert Reimann rmr@olympus.sgi.com