steve@vsi1.UUCP (Steve Maurer) (01/15/88)
Rape is a very difficult subject to discuss objectively,
however I will try:
In biology, there has (reletively) recently been discovered
a phenomenon called the "Selfish Gene", that is, genes which have
certain properties during reproduction which insure their survival
at the detriment to the organism as a whole. Of course, organisms
which have too many selfish genes die or are not survivable, and
so mechanisms have evolved in cells which tend to defeat selfish
genes. So that it is the case that almost all creatures have both
selfish, and "selfish-defeating" genes.
Rape (at least for animals) is a mirror of this behavior on
the societal/species level. An individual member, undesirable for
any one of a number of reasons, will attempt to pass on its genes
during the reproductive cycle to the detrement of the species as
a whole. Against the evolutionary imperitive, each species has
developed some means to discourage this practice, generally by
making it difficult to accomplish in the first place. However,
if there are enough "successes", the tendency will be passed down.
There must be a number of prerequisites already present in a
species before a "rape behavior" has a chance of starting. First,
the species must be one in which the forcable passing of genetic
material is possible, and viable offspring must result (this
effectively restricts the behavior to males). In addition, the
selective pressure must be on the reproductive side, not the
survival side, since a member of a prey species which lives to
reproductive age is by definition "desirable". The species must
be societal, as "rape behavior" requires unsuspicious proximity,
and there must be a lack of territorial instincts among tribal
members. And finally, the species must have a low birth rate,
making the offpring more valuable to the offended mother alive,
than simply killing it and starting over.
Given all these restrictions, it is absolutely amazing the
number of species which have rape behaviors. Monogamy is certainly
not a prerequsite, as Walruses suffer this behavior. Neither is a
pattern of male dominance, as the ant example shows (among others).
Nor is mammalism. It appears that this self-destructive species
behavior can be found whenever it becomes successful enough not to
be constantly subjected to survival pressures.
So what conclusions can we draw from this about human rape?
Before addressing such a loaded and emotionally charged question,
let be first reiterate the strict definition of "rape" I have been
using, and what it implies for humans: Rape is a reproductive action
which promotes the genetic interests of the individual rapist against
the species (or society) as a whole. Expressly it has nothing to do
with the feelings or emotions of the victim, except as the society
permits itself to relate to them.
I use this definition not out of any particular malice or lack
of empathy, but rather because it (as numerous unfortunate victims
can attest) is the correct one. Western, and most notably American
culture, has moved its societal definition of Rape closer to the victims
perspective than ever before (and even - in the case of Statutory Rape
- beyond it), but this does not mean that society (and the well-masked
genetic imperitive) is not fully in control of what it considers
its best interests.
( I also use Rape in this way to seperate it from the nebulous
field of coersive / "persuasive" / "seductive" sex, which appears to be
a natural (i.e. very common) activity applied by both men and women
in the course of relationships. Though legaly, the use of alchohol
for "seductive" purposes is classified as rape in many states, it is
generally accepted practice. So trying to use it as part of a
Sociological definition leaves the exact meaning of "rape" extremely
subject to interpretation. )
Rape occurs when a man, either persuasively or forcably,
initiates sex with a woman, in a manner or situation which is
disapproved of by his current society. Depending upon the society,
and its need (or percieved need) for children, this may be very loose
or strict. Other societal considerations, such as percieved need for
genetic purity (racism), maintenence of social strata, the feelings
of the victim, and the feelings of the man are considered with
different weights.
In cultures with an imperitive on a "high" birth rate (high only
in relation to man, not other species), there is very little Rape.
Coercive sex is maximized and legitimized, especially within marrage,
but Rape only really occurs when the rapist attacks an already married
woman. Any other situation is simply considered as a form of seduction,
with the "crime" only being the initiation of sex without approval.
In this case, the society usually punishes the pair by completing the
ceremony. Note that when coercive sex is common, victims are usually
unaware they have been "raped", and do not consider it as such.
In cultures with an imperitive on a low birth rate, the emphasis
is the opposite: nearly all sexual activity not within the specific
marital institution is Rape. Coercive sex may exist marrage, but it
too is limited. Non-coercive sex quite often becomes classified as
rape, especially when the man is particularly undesirable from the
culture's point of view. "Blame" for any Rape, gradually shifts from
female to the male, and punishments increase dramatically in magnitude.
Societies and their corresponding cultures, also suffer evolutionary
changes. Some more radically than others. In societies like our own,
which once needed a high birth rate, but no longer do, there is a
confusion. Sexual aggressiveness among males to increase the birthrate,
once highly desirable, is no longer. Raped females, who once had a need
to be provided for, now no longer suffer that fate, so society feels no
compulsion to force a marrage (and tend towards leniency). Yet there
are certain groups which remain to cling to the old values.
Most of the increase in Rapes we have seen recently, I believe,
occur because of a misunderstanding of what is now permissable under
the new rules of society, and what once was permissible. Couples once
strictly chaperoned to prevent any form of unlicensed leason, are left
on their own devices. Sex is not only permissible, but often considered
a status symbol. Yet old cultural values regarding permissible sexual
aggressiveness in males are still maintained, and in certain circles,
encouraged. To the inexperienced, ignorant, juvenile male, the
difference between acceptable aggressiveness, and unacceptable, is
difficult to understand. To the unsensitive, unintelligent, overly
agressive male, it is almost impossible.
There are, of course, the other kind of rapists. Those who have
usually aquired an early education in violence, being abused children,
and with an healthy dose of testosterone turn into abusers themselves.
However, despite press sensationalism, such people are extrememly
rare, and have always existed in various societies.
Due to technology advances, much of the "genetic advantage" of
rape has been removed. I imagine that in a million or so years,
(or so :-}) it would probably fade out entirely.
Steve Mauererlazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (01/16/88)
In article <263@vsi1.UUCP> steve@vsi1.UUCP (Steve Maurer) writes: > > Rape is a very difficult subject to discuss objectively, >however I will try: About time - most of the posters have been more interested in polemics than edification. > In biology, there has ... been discovered >a phenomenon called the "Selfish Gene", that is, genes which have >certain properties during reproduction which insure their survival >at the detriment to the organism as a whole. Of course, organisms >which have too many selfish genes die or are not survivable, and >so mechanisms have evolved in cells which tend to defeat selfish >genes. So that it is the case that almost all creatures have both >selfish, and "selfish-defeating" genes. Well not quite. I have read Richard Dawkin's definitive book "The Selfish Gene" about five times so I think I can feel confident about clarifying the issue. (Comments from a real geneticist would be appreciated). The thing that determines whether a gene is passed on is its effect on the individual that carries it, not its effect on the species. One of the examples Dawkins uses is a species, call them fnords, for the heck of it. Fnords suffer from a parasite that attaches to their backs If it is not removed the fnord eventually dies. Fnords cannot remove their own parasites, but can remove another fnord's parasite. There is a small but finite chance that a fnord will die if it removes a parasite from another fnord. Assume two types of fnords - nices and nasties. A nice will remove the parasite from the back of any other fnord it meets. A nasty will try to get its own fnord removed but will not remove parasites from other fnords. If the entire population is nices then everything is fine - parasites kill only a few fnords and the species is fine. If the entire populations is nasties parasites quickly kill all the fnords and the species becomes extinct. If the population is mixed the nasties have an advantage and soon dominate the population. The nices become extinct and the rest of the fnords follow. The key point here is that evolution works for the survival of the fittest organism, not the fittest species. In certain cases it can drive a species to extinction. The theory has nothing to do with individual cells within a larger organism. > Rape (at least for animals) is a mirror of this behavior on >the societal/species level. An individual member, undesirable for >any one of a number of reasons, will attempt to pass on its genes >during the reproductive cycle to the detrement of the species as >a whole. Against the evolutionary imperitive, each species has >developed some means to discourage this practice, generally by >making it difficult to accomplish in the first place. However, >if there are enough "successes", the tendency will be passed down. Well even any. I would be surprised if any species in which a reasonably risk-free child producing rape is even occasionally possible does not have rape. > There must be a number of prerequisites already present in a >species before a "rape behavior" has a chance of starting. First, >the species must be one in which the forcable passing of genetic >material is possible, and viable offspring must result (this >effectively restricts the behavior to males). Why should a female ever commit rape? She bears the major cost of producing offspring (the male does not need to stick around) therefore she can almost alway find a willing donor of genetic material. This passing male will take an almost 0-cost gamble that the inferior female may be able to produce viable children. As all the male risks is a couple of ounces of protein and sugars it is a great opportunity. A female should never need to commit rape. > Rape is a reproductive action >which promotes the genetic interests of the individual rapist against >the species (or society) as a whole. Expressly it has nothing to do >with the feelings or emotions of the victim, except as the society >permits itself to relate to them. You're definition would probably also include any reproductive action that had the potential to pass on any genetic deficiencies. Examples would include mental retardation, any congenital disease, and probably problems such as obesity and alcoholism. In think it is too wide and off the mark. The definition I would choose is any act that causes a female to have a reproductive action {This terminology stinks, but I can't think of anything better} with a male who she would not normally enter into such an action with due to percieved deficiencies. This would include violent rape and some cases of date rape (those which involve a woman who would not later have freely chosen to have sex with the rapist if he had not committed the crime). It would not include spouse rape because the woman previously chose to enter into sexual relations with the rapist. >[society, masking the genetic imperative, is acting in its own best >interest when it defines and punishes rape] Not quite. The traditional definition, definitely. That was directly passed down from what caveman Ugh thought unacceptable in 2,000,000 B.C. The new additions, such as spouse rape, for example, have been added for political, not genetic reasons. > In cultures with an imperitive on a "high" birth rate (high only >in relation to man, not other species), ... >Rape only really occurs when the rapist attacks an already married >woman. Any other situation is simply considered as a form of seduction, >with the "crime" only being the initiation of sex without approval. >In this case, the society usually punishes the pair by completing the >ceremony. Well, I don't have the sources on this, but I really wouldn't like to be apprehended after raping somebody's daughter in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran. Somehow I think that at the very least I would end up minus my cojones. You should remember that it is in my genetic interest to prevent a man from raping my daughter. After all, she is the only method I have of passing on my genes. I definitely do not want her to spend 9 months (and possibly die) bearing a child of doubtful genetic worth > Most of the increase in Rapes we have seen recently, I believe, >occur because of a misunderstanding of what is now permissable under >the new rules of society, and what once was permissible. ... >To the inexperienced, ignorant, juvenile male, the >difference between acceptable aggressiveness, and unacceptable, is >difficult to understand. To the unsensitive, unintelligent, overly >agressive male, it is almost impossible. Come on. To paraphrase a quote in Time magazine a while back, we all know the difference between "no", "NO", and "TAKE YOUR FILTHY HANDS OF MY BREASTS" The only case where lack of knowlege is a reasonable excuse for rape is when the female is moderately intoxicated. I also think it is unfair that when two equally intoxicated people have sex, if anyone is charged it is the male. > There are, of course, the other kind of rapists. Those who have >usually aquired an early education in violence, being abused children, >and with an healthy dose of testosterone turn into abusers themselves. >However, despite press sensationalism, such people are extrememly >rare, and have always existed in various societies. Source please? In my opinion the vast majority of rapists may not have the type of history you describe but they are an abusive type of person. They are not like you and me. To put it in a way that will probably get me in trouble on the net, they are slime who deserve to be punished in just about any way we can think of. I would not object to the death penalty for violent rape.. > Due to technology advances, much of the "genetic advantage" of >rape has been removed. I imagine that in a million or so years, >(or so :-}) it would probably fade out entirely. Doubtful - genetically I will always be better off if I have two or three illegitimate children floating around as a result of rapes as well as my wife and kids. The only technology with the potential to wipe out rape is simple safe abortions and methods to determine whether an embryo is the rapist's child or the child of a desired lover. One related point that noone has brought up is prostitution. The fact that virtually no women frequent prostitutes indicates that men have a desire (whether genetically programmed or socially inculcated) to have sex with less carefully chosen partners. Many men are willing to use a prostitute. Those who are less ethical are also willing to commit rape. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman
throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) (01/18/88)
> steve@vsi1.UUCP (Steve Maurer) > let be first reiterate the strict definition of "rape" I have been > using, and what it implies for humans: Rape is a reproductive action > which promotes the genetic interests of the individual rapist against > the species (or society) as a whole. [...] > I use this definition not out of any particular malice or lack > of empathy, but rather because it (as numerous unfortunate victims > can attest) is the correct one. Say *WHAT*? This definition is remarkably poor, since it excludes many acts that are essentially indistinguashable from the defined act, except that the rapist can be very, very sure that no reproductive advantage is to follow. Rape of prepubescent females, males of all sorts, and post-menopausal females spring to mind just for starters. Something that distinguishes between an act perpetrated against an 8-year-old and the exact same act perpetrated against an 18-year-old misses the point rather severely, I would think. The misclassification Steve indulges in in this "definition" of rape, of course, obscures the rather obvious fact that the hypothesis that rape behaviors are caused by a "selfish gene" in an attempt to reproduce is really a rather remarkably poor hypothesis. We are to believe that this gene provokes a fine-tuned and quite complex aggresive behavior, and at the same time this behavior is so poorly adapted to its hypothetically intended effect that the behavior is quite often directed against targets totally incapable of impregnation. Defining the problem away by saying that it isn't rape (and thus perhaps not caused by the "selfish gene") if the target isn't impregnable is silly, and complicates things. It is much simpler to look for an adaptave advantage in the behavior which is unrelated to reproduction, since it is fairly clear that the contexts where the act is performed are often unrelated to reproduction. And note that even assuming some adaptive advantate to rape, the idea that a particular adaptive behavior is gene-regulated is premature. It is adaptive behavior for humans to build dams for flood control, but we don't suppose that this behavior is directly genetically regulated. It may be adaptive for humans to rape in some sense or another (in fact, this is likely, at least in the same sense that it is "adaptive" sometimes to steal or murder). But a *reproductive* advantage? Nonsense. A *genetically* *regulated* behavior? A premature conclusion at best, to the point of seeming willfully obtuse. Certainly saying that this shaky hypothesis is "the correct" one is ridiculously uninsightful and premature. To summarize: The hypothesis that rape in humans is a reproductive strategy is ill-justified on the face of it, because the class of rape-like behaviors in humans clearly includes cases where no reproductive advantage can possibly follow. Further, the hypothesis that this behavior, whatever its strategy, is directly gene-regulated is premature at best, and dangerously misleading at worst. -- Giving up on assembly language was the apple in our Garden of Eden: Languages whose use squanders machine cycles are sinful. The LISP machine now permits LISP programmers to abandon bra and fig-leaf. --- Alan J. Perlis Moon calls them Fortran Machines and Lisp Machines, but I would prefer to call them fuzzy mammals and pterodactyls myself. --- Richard P. Gabriel -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (01/24/88)
In article <563@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: >...the hypothesis that rape >behaviors are caused by a "selfish gene" in an attempt to reproduce is >really a rather remarkably poor hypothesis. We are to believe that this >gene provokes a fine-tuned and quite complex aggresive behavior, and at >the same time this behavior is so poorly adapted to its hypothetically >intended effect that the behavior is quite often directed against >targets totally incapable of impregnation. The selfish gene behavior simply sets a crude survival or reproduction strategy. Specific tactics used will vary widely. Both rape and marriage can be examples of specific tactics, even though neither guarantees reproduction. Hunger is a good example of a selfish gene phenomenon that occasionally goes astray and leads to obesity, which actually may shorten one's reproductive life. Evolution is a very imperfect mechanism. Its only redeeming property is that Creation is even worse. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (01/28/88)
In article <574@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: [see earlier articles for full context] >Is >canibalism primarily a food-gathering strategy, driven by hunger? It >may be in some rare instances, but in general, almost certainly not. [and rape is analogous] The "selfish gene" hypothesis popularized by Dawkins implies that the more closely an animal is related to other animals, the less likely it is to harm them. Cannibalism of those of one's own species is consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis when the victim is not closely related to the one practising cannibalism. There are two opposing forces at work here: the instinct to propagate one's own genes and the instinct to preserve oneself. So long as there is a reasonable alternative, cannibalism is unlikely, because there's always a small chance that the other person is at least distantly related to oneself. Cannibalism in the absence of alternative mechanisms to feed oneself in is perfectly consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis. Rape in the absence of alternative mechanisms to propagate one's genes is equally consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis. What's interesting is the following question: Why are some people so opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up? I can understand people maintaining that this remains unproven, but I can't understand their vehemently insisting that it's necessarily false. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) (01/30/88)
> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) > I don't think that rape today is a major reproductive advantage. I > think that it is an example of another trait that does have a > reproductive advantage and which also has many 'side effects'. Yes, right. There is an obvious adaptation to wanting to engage in sexual intercourse. But it seems much more plausible that this set of behaviors is "borrowed" for a dominance display than that the behavior of rape as we know it in humans is an attempt at reproduction. > [...] the reason that men commit rape is simple - it is > pleasurable. The reason that the majority of us do not do this is that > we are not animals - we can forego pleasure because we know it is 'wrong'. The fact that sexual stimulation is pleasurable doesn't fully explain things. For example, why is it more pleasurable than alternative forms of pseudo-sexual behavior? >>These behaviors are simply not tuned as they "ought" to be if there were >>a significant, heritable advantage to them as a reproductive [...] strategy. > I'm curious. How would you fine tune rape to make it a reproductive > advantage? By inhibiting choice of targets that can't conceive, and by limiting the violence to that necessary to acheive impregnation. What reproductive advantage is gained by the rape and beating of an 80-year-old woman? Even if she could have been impregnated, the gratuitous beating compromises the viability of the resultant fetus. If the behavior were selfish-gene-regulated, one would expect a little better fit of action to hypothesized result. Rather like saying that the human hand is an adaptation to swimming, because swimmers can make some pretty efficent and complex use of the hand in the australian crawl. But the point is, the human hand is really not well adapted to swimming, so the hypothesis that its reason for existing is swimming is remarkably poor. So it is with rape and reproduction. -- "You think this is a trap, then?" the Count asked. "I think everything is a trap until proven otherwise," the Prince answered. "Which is why I'm still alive." --- from "The Princess Bride" by William Goldman -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) (01/30/88)
> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) > Cannibalism in the absence of alternative mechanisms to feed oneself in > is perfectly consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis. Rape in the > absence of alternative mechanisms to propagate one's genes is equally > consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis. Of course this is true, but you seem to miss the point I was making, and that is that in each case, the explanation of the behavior is remarkably poor, since the actual behaviors we see are not well adapted to the hypothesized desired result. > What's interesting is the following question: Why are some people so > opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up? I don't doubt this for a minute. *Everything* humans do "reflects our genetic make-up" to some degree. I just doubt that things are as simple as "rape increases reproductive fitness... there, we understand it now." > I can understand people maintaining that this remains unproven, but I > can't understand their vehemently insisting that it's necessarily > false. Well, I haven't been "vehemently insisting" on anything. I just think that the proposed, oversimplified hypothesis is a remarkably poor one. -- "You think this is a trap, then?" the Count asked. "I think everything is a trap until proven otherwise," the Prince answered. "Which is why I'm still alive." --- from "The Princess Bride" by William Goldman -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) (01/30/88)
In article <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, Rahul Dhesi (dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP) writes: > [a discussion of the possible genetic basis of cannibalism] > [. . .] Rape in the > absence of alternative mechanisms to propagate one's genes is equally > consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis. > > What's interesting is the following question: Why are some people so > opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up? I > can understand people maintaining that this remains unproven, but I > can't understand their vehemently insisting that it's necessarily > false. Okay, here are my reasons for being opposed to the hypothesis (and I feel that I'm being asked to repeat myself). If you get bored, zoom ahead to reason number 8. 1. I don't agree that social behaviors have a direct one-to-one -- or even many-to-one -- relationship to genotypes. Behaviors are not phenotypes. 2. I don't agree with the analogy between animal coerced copulation and human rape. I don't know what's going in the animal events -- they may or may not confer a biological advantage. I'm pretty certain of what's going on the human crime (see below), and I'm quite sure that it does not convey a biological advantage. 3. Human rape is often destructive of the victim; it therefore reduces the viability of the possible issue of the rape. If rape conveyed a biological advantage, then the behavior would involve less abuse to the victims, to increase the biological advantage to the offspring. Men who rape women often beat them both before _and_after_ raping them. Men who rape women sometimes kill them. Please tell me how this provides a biological advantage. 4. Human rape is often committed in a way that can not produce children . . . rape of children, rape of post-menopausal women, rape of male victims, oral rape, anal rape. Please tell me how these provide a biological advantage. 5. Human rape occurs within a power structure. In western culture, it generally correlates with a power differential between rapist and victim. It is perceived by all parties as a humiliating experience on the part of the victim. In those parts of the world where rape is practiced by women upon men, it is done by powerful women on powerless men (e.g., residents commit rape on travelers), and it is accompanied by other acts which humiliate the victim. The social dynamic is the same no matter which sex is the aggressor: the powerful remind the powerless of their status. 6. Human rape occurs within _one_ social structure as a predominantly man-aggresses-against-woman phenomenon, and in _other_ social structures as a predominantly woman-aggresses-against-man phenomenon. We hear (from men, mostly) about the "likelihood" that the first type of rape is biologically ordained; we never hear anyone speaking for the second type of rape as being biologically ordained. Yet the two types of rape function analogously in their social structures. Doesn't this suggest to you that rape is a product of social forces, not of biological ones? 7. Therefore, it seems to me that there is little in the data to support the genetic hypothesis. In the absence of any supporting data, I have to ask myself why some people find this so compelling an argument. Gould and Lewontin and Rose and Rose and Kamin have documented the abrupt decrease in scientific standards which are applied when an allegedly biological hypothesis happens to support a social prejudice (e.g., heritability of intelligence, race and IQ, genetics and mental illness, etc.). It seems that data which would be thrown out as laughable if put forth to support a non-political point, are suddenly highly respectable when brought to the aid of someone's political agenda. As I tried to show in a previous posting, the same style of sloppy social/biological argumentation could be used to state a "biological advantage to child abuse." Briefly: infanticide in some animals can be argued to be consistent with selfish genes. Child abuse is like infanticide. Ergo . . . But no one wants to argue that infanticide is "natural" or "genetically based" or a "heritable tendency." Child abuse is not part of a social prejudice. No one is interested in seeing a biological "justification" for its existence. And that leads me to my last point: 8. My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence against women in western culture. How? If you believe that rape is in some way "natural," then you can talk about a man's "natural instincts," and this can make it seem that a rapist is somehow "being tempted" to do something "natural" by the "attractiveness" of a woman. Worse, still: this can lead to blaming-the-victim scenarios, in which the woman who has been raped is told that it is her fault for wearing allegedly provocative clothing or for allegedly leading a man on, or some such foolishness which shifts the responsibility for oppression from oppressor to victim. As we've been discussing in soc.women, the legal system insists on victimizing women in related ways -- "what did you do to _deserve_ being raped?" "how many men have you slept with (and what were their names)?" (Note, again with reference to child abuse, that no one is suggesting that there are children who child-abusers are behaving instinctually, and no one tries to explain how abused children "bring it on themselves.") If, on the other hand, we recognize rape for what I believe it is -- a violent act based in social inequities and intended to promote or maintain those inequities -- then we have rather less sympathy for the rapist. He (or she!) is not doing "what comes naturally." He (or she) is not doing something for which Nature is ultimately responsible, which would in fact be of "biological advantage" if the setting were only a little different. Instead, we can see that the violence is in service of politics (the politics of sexual oppression) -- and is a type of terrorism. And we can think about it as we do other hate-crimes. Those are the stakes, as I see them. Simple analysis of the behaviors indicates that the biological-advantage argument is insupportable. The social impact of the idea is costly and destructive. So I don't argue that it's "necessarily false." I do argue that it is a dangerous assertion -- dangerous in terms of its immediate physical and social impact on women. The assertion endangers women's lives. Dangerous assertions ought to be examined carefully before they are broadcast far and wide. I think that this hypothesis belongs back in the desk drawer (or the porn shop) until there are some data stronger than fantasies to support it. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.
rawlins@iuvax.UUCP (Gregory J. E. Rawlins) (02/01/88)
In article <587@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: >> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) >> What's interesting is the following question: Why are some people so >> opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up? > >I don't doubt this for a minute. *Everything* humans do "reflects our >genetic make-up" to some degree. I just doubt that things are as simple >as "rape increases reproductive fitness... there, we understand it now." Exactly. A lot of people tend to believe that nature is teleological. The thing to keep in mind is that a specific adaptation always has side effects (as a simple example, think of sickle-cell anaemia). And the more complex the organism the more side effects there are to any specific new adaptation. When viewed from a human point of view these side effects may be "good" or "bad" (perhaps i should simplify even more for the moralists out there to "nice" and "not nice" :-). Whatever was the specific reproductive advantage to our particular hormonal balance and large brain outweighed any disadvantages that are also associated with our hormonal balance and large brains otherwise we wouldn't be here to argue about it. *That's all*. If people insist on looking for reproductive advantage in every human behaviour mechanism they deserve whatever they find. I wish to see this discussion dropped from sci.bio. gregory. ---- Gregory J. E. Rawlins - rawlins@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (02/01/88)
>In article <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, Rahul Dhesi (dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP) writes: > >> >> What's interesting is the following question: Why are some people so >> opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up? I > In article <373@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: >Okay, here are my reasons for being opposed to the hypothesis (and I > >1. I don't agree that social behaviors have a direct one-to-one -- > or even many-to-one -- relationship to genotypes. Behaviors are > not phenotypes. > You may not believe it; and there will be alot of people refusing to believe the evidence because it is politically incorrect to talk about the causal relationship between genotype and phenotype where personality is concerned. Such discussion comes in and out of vogue depending on the political climate. Usually, someone abuses the notions for his/her own power gains which ultimately puts the notions out of vogue. But, like it or not, the causal relationship does exist. The best study of which I am aware was done on "Old Order Amish" and the appearance of manic depression in rare individuals. There are a number of reasons why this group is suited to the study. Among these is the fact that wide variations in social environment, which certainly have a great effect in the development of such traits, do not exist. In other words, it keeps the background low. The result is that this particular "bipolar disorder" is the result of a single gene, which is autosomal dominant and maps to the short arm of chromosome 11 between the genes for insulin and ras (Egeland et al. 1987. Nature Vol. 325 pp 783 ff.). Before you dismiss it as politically motivated, racist, or whatever, read the data...they are quite rigorous and quite compelling. >2. I don't agree with the analogy between animal coerced copulation > and human rape. Ok, personally I don't think rape exists for reproduction in either the "duck example" or in humans. You make points below that rape in humans is to reinforce power roles: men over women; men over subordinate men etc. I think you are right. Why are you sure that the male ducks don't do it for the same reason? It is not immediatly obvious to me how this could be selected, though I can think of a few models. But it seems to be common in animal behaviour. That I don't understand the "advantage" of such power assertion will not cause me to rule out that an advantage exists, especially when confronted with so many examples of it. > >3. Human rape is often destructive of the victim; it therefore > reduces the viability of the possible issue of the rape. If > Please tell me how this provides a biological advantage. Why is it that reinforcing power positions by forcing humiliating acts is so common? I don't know for sure, but it certainly a common thing...ever seen a Frat "hazing?" > >4. Human rape is often committed in a way that can not produce > children . . . rape of children, rape of post-menopausal women, no argument. >5. Human rape occurs within a power structure. In western culture, > it generally correlates with a power differential between rapist > and victim. It is perceived by all parties as a humiliating > experience on the part of the victim. > I think you are on the right track. (I have deleted a bit of that with which I basically aggree.) > >7. Therefore, it seems to me that there is little in the data to > support the genetic hypothesis. I disaggree. I think there are good data supporting the causal relationship between genotype and personality. I am a Biochemist/molecular biologist myself, so I am not up on all the literature. But I have read some. Read the paper I referenced above and see if you think it is "laughable" evidence. > > As I tried to show in a previous posting, the same style of > sloppy social/biological argumentation could be used to state > a "biological advantage to child abuse." Briefly: infanticide > in some animals can be argued to be consistent with selfish > genes. Child abuse is like infanticide. Ergo . . . But no > one wants to argue that infanticide is "natural" or "genetically > based" or a "heritable tendency." On the contrary, the replies I saw argued that child abuse is not infantcide. They argued further that examples of infantcide are common in human history and it probably occurs for the very same reasons in both humans and other animals. In that sense, infantcide is "natural." Nature is not kind and gentle. "Heaven and Earth are not "Humane-hearted" (jen), they regard all things as straw dogs." -Lao T'zu > > >8. My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape > position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence > against women in western culture. > Yes, knowlege can be missused. It is potentially true that Asian Americans could missuse the fact that they have higher I.Q.s than whites on average. They could use this to foster "all whites are genetically inferior" views and oppress whites. Other groups (mostly "whites") have missused similar information before. But, that the Asian-American population could missuse the facts does not make them false. I aggree with you that we must be careful not to use it as an "excuse" ("He couldn't help himself"). I hope you will aggree that understanding the root causes is important in preventing dangerous behaviour. > >Michael Muller -tony
travis@madonna (Travis Lee Winfrey) (02/03/88)
>In article <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, Rahul Dhesi (dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP) writes: >> [. . .] Rape in the >> absence of alternative mechanisms to propagate one's genes is equally >> consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis. >> >> What's interesting is the following question: Why are some people so >> opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up? I >> can understand people maintaining that this remains unproven, but I >> can't understand their vehemently insisting that it's necessarily >> false. 1. Because it is justification for rape in the guise of science. 2. Because it is a mythology that draws attention to the "sexual" part of rape, i.e., the use of the genitals, while drawing attention away from the violent and dehumanizing effects of rape. 3. Because it is a hypothesis without facts, unverifiable, something to muse over at a bar, while the tremendous prevalence of rape in the world is ignored, lots of hard numbers are ignored, lots of in-depth studies on rapists and those who have survived a rape are ignored. Folk wisdom just dances us away from the facts. 4. Because about half of all rapists don't achieve a full erection; less than half half of all rapes last until ejaculation, if it occurs at all. Plus, as Muller said, a large number of rapes could not possibly cause conception. Hardly the biological inevitable event you may (or may not!) think it is. 5. Because, apart from political correctness and all that, it doesn't bear examination as science by scientists in the field. See "Violence Against Women", edited by Suzanne Sunday and Ethel Tobach, which is a book of essays discussing precisely this topic: the alleged sociobiological purpose of rape. They rip the theory apart. (Scientists in a feeding frenzy.) This is not to say, of course, that we won't all be regaled by armchair theorists many times on this topic in the future. 6. We are not animals. Human beings choose their behavior. We are responsible for what we do. and finally, to repeat the end of an excellent article: In article <373@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: > If, on the other hand, we recognize rape for what I believe > it is -- a violent act based in social inequities and intended > to promote or maintain those inequities -- then we have rather > less sympathy for the rapist. He (or she!) is not doing "what > comes naturally." He (or she) is not doing something for which > Nature is ultimately responsible, which would in fact be of > "biological advantage" if the setting were only a little different. > Instead, we can see that the violence is in service of politics > (the politics of sexual oppression) -- and is a type of terrorism. > And we can think about it as we do other hate-crimes. t -- Arpa: travis@cunixc.columbia.edu Bitnet: travis@cu20b Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis USMail: 483 Mudd, Columbia Univ., NYC 10025 Phone: 212-280-8091
dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) (02/03/88)
In article <373@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: >Okay, here are my reasons for being opposed to the hypothesis (and I >feel that I'm being asked to repeat myself). If you get bored, zoom >ahead to reason number 8. ...ZOOM... >8. My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape > position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence > against women in western culture... > > If, on the other hand, we recognize rape for what I believe > it is -- a violent act based in social inequities and intended > to promote or maintain those inequities -- then we have rather > less sympathy for the rapist... And buried in here is the reason why so many people are disturbed by your arguments. Your main reason for arguing against the hypothesis (hereinafter called GBR for brevity) is that you believe that people will act a certain way if they believe it, and you don't want them to act that way. So your arguments are, in effect, motivated by a desire to control other people's actions by influencing their beliefs. And, if you are right about the way people will behave if they believe GBR, then they will behave the same whether their belief is mistaken or not. So whether or not GBR is true is beside the point: the important thing is to make sure that people don't believe it. It sounds like I'm accusing you of dishonesty, but I'm not. I believe that you are 100% sincere in your belief that there is no genetic basis for rape, and that one of your grounds for reaching this conclusion was a consideration of how other people will behave if they believe it. And it only seems natural that somebody who disagrees with a hypothesis because a political purpose of his would be frustrated if many people believed it would see those who advance or entertain that hypothesis as motivated by an opposite purpose. And lo and behold, this theme runs through all your postings. People who suggest that intelligence is heritable *must* be motivated by a desire to oppress blacks, people who suggest GBR *must* be motivated by a desire to excuse rape, or so you seem to think. As I said, I do not believe you are lying. You are all the more disturbing because you are honest. You seem to form your beliefs about the world by a process that is largely independent of the characteristics of that world, and seem to be incapable of telling the difference between truth and falsehood. When *I'm* fabricating beliefs that I want others to believe, as an instrument for influencing their behaviour towards the realization of my purposes, I at least *know* I'm doing it. -- David Canzi
draughn@iitmax.UUCP (Mark T. Draughn) (02/04/88)
In article <4090@sigi.Colorado.EDU> pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) writes: >Yes, knowlege can be missused. It is potentially true that Asian Americans >could missuse the fact that they have higher I.Q.s than whites on average. >They could use this to foster "all whites are genetically inferior" views >and oppress whites. Other groups (mostly "whites") have missused similar >information before. But, that the Asian-American population could missuse >the facts does not make them false. Uh, well, actually... The problem with studies that show racial group differences in I.Q. is not a flaw in the tests, but a flaw in the theory behind them. Just because they are called "Intelligence" tests doesn't mean they really test anything that may be called intelligence. So someone is good at analogies and sequence completion and cube counting? How do we know that this means he/she will be intelligent by any real meaning of the word? Intelligence is a hard-to-define concept. If it can't be defined, it can't be measured. Only if you define it as "the ability to do well on intelligence tests" do I.Q. tests really work. Even if we had good tests for intelligence (whatever that means) we would have to show that it can be inherited biologically and not environmentally. For a very good discussion on this point of view see: Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 1981. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Mark Draughn UUCP: ...ihnp4!iitmax!draughn Computer Science Department BITNET: SYSMARK@IITVAX Illinois Institute of Technology (312) 567-5334 Chicago, Illinois 60616 This space for rent. "If you think the United States has stood still, who built the largest shopping center in the world?" -- Richard Nixon
robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) (02/05/88)
I don't have any more patience for the kind of thing that follows, which is why I left. However, as long as events temporarily compel me to read this group (soc.women), I will undoubtably encounter this sort of thing that I cannot, in good conscience, leave unanswered. In article <4371@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes: >In article <373@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: >>Okay, here are my reasons for being opposed to the hypothesis (and I >>feel that I'm being asked to repeat myself). If you get bored, zoom >>ahead to reason number 8. > >...ZOOM... > >>8. My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape >> position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence >> against women in western culture... >> > >Your main reason for arguing against the hypothesis >(hereinafter called GBR for brevity) is that you believe that people >will act a certain way if they believe it, and you don't want them to >act that way. So your arguments are, in effect, motivated by a desire >to control other people's actions by influencing their beliefs. >[...] >So whether or not GBR is true is beside the point: the important >thing is to make sure that people don't believe it. >[...] >I believe >that you are 100% sincere in your belief that there is no genetic basis >for rape, and that one of your grounds for reaching this conclusion was >a consideration of how other people will behave if they believe it. You accuse M. Muller of committing the pragmatic fallacy, and you use this in a rather shabby and obvious attempt to impune his evidence. Why the hell are you so motivated to impune arguments against GBR as to resort to these cheap tactics? M. Muller said, "my main reason for arguing." Not believing. Arguing. Items 1-7 are reasons for not believing GBR. They are sound and persuasive. Item 8 does not have to do with why it is false, but why one should argue against it. You state that one of the reasons M. Muller believes that GBR is not true is because of the negative consequences of having people believe it, in other words, the pragmatic fallacy. There is no justification or support for such an accusation. M. Muller provided sound and convincing arguments for why GBR is false. However, GBR, unlike Creationism and the Tooth Fairy, has severe negative consequences. It is not a harmless myth or meaningless misconception. It is not the kind of drivel that one can, with clear conscience, permit to spread unchecked. It is not because GBR is dangerous that one should believe it to be false, rather it is because it is false and dangerous that one should not permit its belief and advocacy to go unchallenged. M. Muller's position is clear, and his arguments deserve better treatment, than they have suffered at your hands. I can only wonder what motivated you to distort his arguments, evidence, and position in the way that you have. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (02/06/88)
In article <427@iitmax.UUCP> draughn@iitmax.UUCP (Mark T. Draughn) writes: >In article <4090@sigi.Colorado.EDU> pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) writes: >>Yes, knowlege can be missused. It is potentially true that Asian Americans >>could missuse the fact that they have higher I.Q.s than whites on average. >>They could use this to foster "all whites are genetically inferior" views >>and oppress whites. Other groups (mostly "whites") have missused similar >>information before. But, that the Asian-American population could missuse >>the facts does not make them false. > >Uh, well, actually... > >The problem with studies that show racial group differences in I.Q. is not >a flaw in the tests, but a flaw in the theory behind them. Just because >they are called "Intelligence" tests doesn't mean they really test anything >that may be called intelligence. So someone is good at analogies and >Mark Draughn UUCP: ...ihnp4!iitmax!draughn >Computer Science Department BITNET: SYSMARK@IITVAX I never meant to imply that it would be a proper use of the test score or that the test score reflected much of anything worthwhile. Thanks for making that point more clear. My main point is still the same. There are good data that show causal relationships between genotype and personality traits (I hate to have to insert disclamers all over the place, but I don't mean to imply that environment has no effect. As I said in my last posting, the study to which I refered was conducted on the Amish in part for that reason). We are going to have to face the fact that alot of what we are is heritable. At least on form of manic depression has been added to the list of genetic diseases (there is another, less well-done study linking another form of bipolar disorder to the X chromosome--reference on request). Saying "i don't want it discussed because if it is true it can be misused" is no way to deal with it. We need to understand the cause of a problem before we can address it well. -tony
linda@rtech.UUCP (Linda Mundy) (02/08/88)
In article <1966@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > In article <574@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes: > [see earlier articles for full context] > > What's interesting is the following question: Why are some people so > opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up? I > can understand people maintaining that this remains unproven, but I > can't understand their vehemently insisting that it's necessarily > false. > -- I think it has to do with the notion of "right vs. wrong". What I find interesting, is that scientists pose that question instead of others. (Give me a minute, I'm sure I can think of one...) Here's one: why is it that no other "animal" besides Man (generic of course!?) exhibits the behavior of organized warfare? As to why I find myself vehemently wishing that it's false, I guess that I fear it would be used if not to justify rape, then to minimize its *moral* significance. I feel that the hypothesis itself reflects male bias. And strangely enough, I do find myself getting into the arena of right vs. wrong. Is there a genetic predisposition to murder? Are we asking the right questions? > Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi -- "The sun is but an egg, that hatches great things" Linda Mundy {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!linda Relational Technology, Inc., Alameda, CA
mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) (02/08/88)
In article <4371@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes: > In article <373@rruxa.UUCP> mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: > >Okay, here are my reasons for being opposed to the hypothesis (and I > >feel that I'm being asked to repeat myself). If you get bored, zoom > >ahead to reason number 8. > > ...ZOOM... > > >8. My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape > > position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence > > against women in western culture... > > > > If, on the other hand, we recognize rape for what I believe > > it is -- a violent act based in social inequities and intended > > to promote or maintain those inequities -- then we have rather > > less sympathy for the rapist... > > And buried in here is the reason why so many people are disturbed by > your arguments. "buried in here"? Not buried at all. Stated simply and plainly -- but as a _conclusion_ to my discussion, not (as you treat it) as my only argument. "so many people"? not according to the email I've received, approximately 70-30 in support of what I've said > Your main reason for arguing against the hypothesis > (hereinafter called GBR for brevity) is that you believe that people > will act a certain way if they believe it, and you don't want them to > act that way. So your arguments are, in effect, motivated by a desire > to control other people's actions by influencing their beliefs. Nope. My main reason is that the hypothesis gives support to something that is repugnant, and that the hypothesis can affect people's attitudes toward women and toward violence against women. I am well aware that I cannot control other people's actions. I can argue against some of the premises on which they base those actions. I do so. _If_ the hypothesis were scientifically tenable, it would be worth discussing. But it is not, as I showed in the first seven points of my article -- which points you chose to omit in your quotation. You apparently preferred to claim that I was making a wholly political statement rather than a politically-relevant conclusion based on scientific considerations. This type of selective quoting distorts the sense of the argument, and is at best misleading. The first seven points considered the hypothesis on its own sorry merits, and found it scientifically incredible. It is so easy to show that human rape does _not_ operate in a way to increase reproductive fitness. I restated arguments that others and I have made in previous postings, and which no one has been able to refute. The "scientific" basis of the hypothesis is laughable. So why do people find it so attractive? And why does it happen that almost all of the people who are so drawn to it turn out to be male? > If you are right about the way people will behave if they believe GBR, > then they will behave the same whether their belief is mistaken or > not. So whether or not GBR is true is beside the point: the important > thing is to make sure that people don't believe it. Wrong again. The important thing is to make sure that the fantasies which underly the GBR hypothesis do not go unchallenged. The important thing is to make sure that a demonstrably fallacious argument is not used to endanger women's lives. People will make their own choices about beliefs. I can attempt to influence those choices. So, obviously, can you, as you attempt to do in your posting. You're trying to support one claim, and I think you would not accuse yourself of trying to "control other people's actions" or of trying to "make sure that people . . . believe . . ." Why are your motivations in stating your views any different from mine? > It sounds like I'm accusing you of dishonesty, but I'm not. I believe > that you are 100% sincere in your belief that there is no genetic basis > for rape, and that one of your grounds for reaching this conclusion was > a consideration of how other people will behave if they believe it. Not "one of [my] _grounds_". I listed the stakes involved in the conclusion. I also listed seven other reasons based on scientific criteria or on observations of the process of scientific reasoning, before I introduced the issue that has you so concened. But you keep on not talking about those. > And it only seems natural that somebody who disagrees with a hypothesis > because a political purpose of his would be frustrated if many people > believed it would see those who advance or entertain that hypothesis as > motivated by an opposite purpose. And lo and behold, this theme runs > through all your postings. People who suggest that intelligence is > heritable *must* be motivated by a desire to oppress blacks, people who > suggest GBR *must* be motivated by a desire to excuse rape, or so you > seem to think. Wrong three times. My point -- a point which is shared by a number of people whom you appear not to have read, including Kamin, Lewontin, Rose, Gould, Rose, Sunday, Tobach, etc., etc. -- is that there is very little supportable base of evidence for these "scientific" positions. If you take the trouble to read the critiques, you will find that some or all of the "analyses" used by proponents of these positions are either (a) methodologically botched, or (b) demonstrably falsified. Because there is little or no untainted evidence, we wonder why so many people -- people who just happen to be benefited by these theories -- find them some compelling. There has to be a motivation _somewhere_ for people to insist on the validity of "scientific" theories for which there is no evidence. Scientists aren't generally supposed to do things like that. What's _your_ explanation? > As I said, I do not believe you are lying. You are all the more > disturbing because you are honest. You seem to form your beliefs about > the world by a process that is largely independent of the > characteristics of that world, and seem to be incapable of telling the > difference between truth and falsehood. As I showed in the portion of my article which you chose _not_ to quote (and as I showed in previous articles, and as others have showed in their articles), it is the rape hypothesis and the IQ hypothesis that continue to live in people's minds "by a process that is largely independent of the characteristics of [the] world." And it is the proponents of these hypotheses who seem, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (try reading Sunday and Toback, Gould, Kamin . . .) "to be incapable of telling the difference between truth and falsehood." David, why haven't you refuted the scientific points that I made? Why not start with the _basis_ of my argument, and then see what is left of your hypotheses by the time you arrive at my _conclusion_? Why not analyze honestly what I have said in some detail, instead of attacking my conclusions without considering their foundation? I'd be interested to hear what you think of the scientific points on which I based my conclusion. If you can't speak to those points, then you can have little useful to say about a conclusion based on them. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.
mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) (02/09/88)
In article <4371@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes: > When *I'm* fabricating beliefs that I want others to believe, as an > instrument for influencing their behaviour towards the realization of > my purposes, I at least *know* I'm doing it. David, I disagree strongly with this statement -- not as it applies only to you, but as it applies to all of us. I base my argument on the history and philosophy of science work of T. Kuhn (_The_Structure_ _of_Scientific_Revolutions_ [either edition]), L. Laudan (_Progress_ _and_its_Problems_), and on some more specific historical analyses of S.J. Gould (e.g., his article on Morton's craniometry research, in _Science_ sometime during 1977, and discussed more briefly in _The_ _Mismeasure_of_Man_). In addition, there's lots of more polemical works which I think you would dismiss out of hand, but these four sources should suffice to support the following summary: Scientific theories are based on a mixture of preceding theories and available data. Kuhn's work was important in showing the importance of theory over data (e.g., in contrast to Popper's approach), but Kuhn left a large problem to be solved: If science is not guided primarily by data, then how can we describe a _rational_ progression of scientific thought? Laudan attempted to answer this, by considering two distinct ways in which theories are used: [a] theories which can be criticized -- i.e., competing theories within the research tradition or research program or paradigm that the researcher is actively pursuing (e.g., one learning theory vs. another, or continuous evolution vs. punctuated equilibrium). [b] theories which are accepted as given -- i.e., theories which are considered to form the bedrock of given research (e.g., biological theory is accepted by much of behavioral science, chemical theory by much of biology, physical theory by much of chemistry, etc.). I do not claim that psychologists never critique biological theories (nor biologists chemists, nor chemists physicists), but that the daily bread-and-butter of science takes a great many other, external sciences at face value. Okay, what's the point of all this? It is pretty easy to demonstrate that science is profoundly influenced by the culture in which it is performed -- i.e., that science uncritically accepts some societal "givens" as the base data on which it works (i.e., as a "theory" which is taken as a "given" -- type [b], above). One classic example of this is learning theory, as it developed in pre-revolutionary Russia and in the Soviet Union, vs. the way it developed in the United States: Soviet model: From a rigidly determinist, authoritarian society, Pavlov and colleagues came up with a rigidly determinist learning theory. Organisms learn stimulus-stimulus pairings. The theory explicitly excludes the ability of organisms to _affect_ those stimuli -- to improve their own conditions. This becomes a model, in small, of Czarist or Soviet society. United States model: From a flexible, entrepreneurial society, Skinner and colleagues came up with an entrepreneurial learning theory. Organisms learn stimulus-response-stimulus pairings. Organisms manipulate their responses so as to maximize what they need from the environment. This becomes a model, in small, of capitalist society. Note that both of these models describe the same underlying research approach (reduction of complex behaviors into simple "elements" and rules), and that they were intended to describe the same range of phenomena. Yet they turn out quite different. Clearly, they weren't data-driven. And their non-data-driven aspects were highly related to their social contexts. There are lots of other examples. The point is that we tend to include societal norms as part of our theories, and to do so uncritically and even unknowingly. We do this because, in Laudan's analysis, the norms become a part of the theoretical base of information which we _do_not_ examine critically. By contrast, we think about that restricted area of theories and data which we _do_ examine critically. We call the latter the topic of our science; we call the former our analytic tools, our background, our training, our the "underlying science" upon which our work depends. So I disagree with David about whether we _knowingly_ import political ideology into our science: I claim that there is the potential to do so at all times. I think that, western culture being what it is, this tendency helps to explain the apparently great appeal of hypotheses such as the heritability of IQ, or the genetic advantageousness of human rape, no matter how shoddy is the evidence on which those hypotheses are based. There are numerous other examples that could be drawn from the study of alleged sex differences or alleged race differences; you can find them in the work I referred to in previous posting, that of Kamin, Lewontin, Rose, Rose, Gould, and so on. The title of one anthology of their articles sums up the problem nicely: _Biology_as_a_ _Social_Weapon. Michael Muller Bellcore I wish that my views were Bell Communications Research representative of those ..!bellcore!ctt!mjm of my employer.
egauss@houxa.UUCP (E.GAUSS) (02/16/88)
Michael, and several other of the ladies, seem to be concerned that all examples of gender attitude seperation are artificial. Yet most of the gentlemen who post, argue that they are real. It struck me that this is in itself an example of a attitude seperation based upon gender. Ed Gauss, Aging Curmudgeon
dnelson@faline.bellcore.com (Dorothy Nelson) (02/18/88)
In article <> egauss@houxa.UUCP (E.GAUSS) writes: >Michael, and several other of the ladies, seem to be concerned that all >examples of gender attitude seperation are artificial. Yet most of the >gentlemen who post, argue that they are real. It struck me that this >is in itself an example of a attitude seperation based upon gender. True, but you will have a hard time convincing me that this separation is motivated solely biologically... (my penis made me do it!!! :-) I assume you mean "artificial" to be used in lieu of "social context." I have yet to see a logically thorough study on biological motivation. All I have seen are studies done in a social context which claim to be unsullied by social context. Who needs that kind of misinformation? (Hint: the ruling class.) --cosmique muffin (dorothy) ...!allegra!moss!thumper!dnelson
rmr@chefchu.SGI.COM (Robert Reimann) (02/20/88)
In article <376@rruxa.UUCP>, mjm@rruxa.UUCP (M Muller) writes: > > > > >8. My main reason for arguing against the genetic-basis-of-rape > > > position is that it can be used to excuse the existing violence > > > against women in western culture... > > > > > > If, on the other hand, we recognize rape for what I believe > > > it is -- a violent act based in social inequities and intended > > > to promote or maintain those inequities -- then we have rather > > > less sympathy for the rapist... > > > First of all, let's get our terms straight. "Rape" is a *legal* term; it does not have a place in biology. The legal definition of rape varies from culture to culture; I suspect the definition in this country is somewhat broader than that in, say, Iran. If we are going to talk about a human behavior in a biological context, we had better be able to describe it in biological terms. Given that we are primates, and that we understand primate simple primate behaviors fairly well, I think it is reasonable to suggest that human "rape behavior" can be classified as a specific instance of aggressive primate behavior. Mr. Muller, I agree with you; there is no hard evidence that rape enhances reproductive fitness. However, this does not discount the possiblity of genetic influences in human behavior which may indirectly be linked to physical violence, rape included. In other words, I think there is a good case for linking human rape behavior to aggression; you say this much yourself. You would like to link violence to "social inequities." Unfortunately, this is a rather imprecise term. It also does not explain why rapists (and perpetrators of all other violent crimes) are primarily *young adult* males. My own belief is that aggressive behavior in general is influenced by testosterone levels (which are highest among young adult males). Obviously testosterone levels are genetically influenced. So here we have a possible genetic link, but not a direct one. But, let's take a closer look at the alternative you suggest: that rape has a social cause, i.e., women are not treated as equals by men in our society. (I don't know why you choose to single out "Western civilization", the Chinese used to bind the feet of their women so they could not be self reliant-- they couldn't walk!). The problem with social causes is they lead to circular arguments: Women are not treated as equals by society, so men can take advantage of women with relative impunity. But why doesn't society treat women as equals? Because men continue to take advantage of of women with relative impunity. These may be true statements, but they do nothing to explain the problem, except in its own terms. My main point is that environment and biology work together in subtle ways to shape human behavior. The extent to which each affects us is worthy of careful consideration. Ascribing human behavior entirely to environment is as falacious as genetic determinism. If we can find a biochemical link to pathologically violent behavior, we could then look for the combination of environmental and chemical factors necessary to mediate or rectify the problem. (I think environment plays the greater part in most cases, myself.) By the way, I relooked over "Mismeasure of Man" by Gould. It turns out he agrees that biology does influence behavior. What he argues against are those alleged individuals who maintain that SPECIFIC behaviors such as "rape", for example, are naturally selected. I maintain that the set of respectable biologists who believe this is a null set. I recognize how the relationship between nature and nurtue can be misunderstood and misused by the ignorant and the malicious. However, it is only through general understanding that these people may be silenced. As long as there is doubt, there will be those who attempt to prey on the fear and ignorance of others. I hope some of this makes sense to both the nature-bashers and the nuture-bashers. Robert Reimann rmr@inferno.sgi.UUCP
kevin@chromo.ucsc.edu (Kevin McLoughlin) (03/17/88)
In article <1687@rtech.UUCP> linda@rtech.UUCP (Linda Mundy) writes: >> opposed to the hypothesis that rape reflects our genetic make-up? I >me a minute, I'm sure I can think of one...) Here's one: why is it that >no other "animal" besides Man (generic of course!?) exhibits the behavior of >organized warfare? As an aside--of all the primates (our closest relatives), only adult male orangutans occasionally behave in a manner that might be described as rape, ie violently forcing sexual intercourse. It seems relevant to point out the peculiarities of the orang's social adaptation. Orangs range in grouping patterns of mom + baby and sometimes adolescent, and solitary adult males. Ie, individuals stay with mom until adolescence, then (as I recall) they gradually spend less time ranging together until the adolescent (male or female)is on his/her own. While I don't recall whether females spend time with mom after she (the teen) has mated for the first time and given birth herself, a male in particular leaves and becomes totally solitary after adolescence. I mean he doesn't intentionally meet and interact with other orangs for the rest of his life--except when he meets up with a female in estrus and wants to have sex with her (and if he meets up with another male--but territory-wise they tend to avoid each other). So these male orangs are, shall we say, super-nonsocial. Antisocial. My guess is that they just forget and/or disregard the rules of polite orang interaction after a while, and under the stress of hormonal activation let themselves get violently carried away. Orangs are, as primates, weird, because they turn the whole primate adaptation--social life--on its head. Only in such a non-society can rape-like behavior be gotten away with, it appears. You just can't have that kind of behavior. Theory suggests, anyhow, that females do the choosing and that such behavior isn't real appreciated by the ladies. Anyhow, what this all says to me is that rape is real antisocial, just not something that social-type primates (like us) can develop except under real pathological conditions (such as most current human societies)?? solitary. ----------- Susan Nordmark Internet: kevin@chromo.UCSC.edu UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucscc!chromo.kevin Santa Cruz, CA
vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (03/17/88)
In article <2401@saturn.ucsc.edu> kevin@chromo.UUCP (Susan Nordmark) writes: >>me a minute, I'm sure I can think of one...) Here's one: why is it that >>no other "animal" besides Man (generic of course!?) exhibits the behavior of >>organized warfare? I believe (article read in Sci. Am. last year?) that recent studies have shown that chimpanzees engage in behavior frightenly similar to organized war. That is, member of one troop will get together, mass on the boundary of their territory, actively puruse members of the other troop, and kill them. O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician | Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York, but my opinions | vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .