List,
Nobody I know in the scientific community claims that Homo sapiens are not
animals. I don't think that Alan Spector advances a position claiming that
they are something other than animals. These slogans of Jay Hansen's -
strawman and hyperbole - are rhetorical devices, mere segue into hacked
and uncritically assimilated materials cut and pasted from web files that
either support, or are made to appear to support, Jay's reactionism.
One need not in this instance wonder the intent that lies behind the
noting of the well-known genetic likeness of humans and chimpanzees. Given
the sociobiological argument being advanced, it is clear that the appeal
to genetics is meant to tap widespread assumptions about other primates,
assumptions that are largely erroneous, and claim that certain of these
behaviors are in the genes of humans. We are to here consider the "naked
ape" in light of the alleged brutality of the hairy ones. The interesting
thing about typical appeals to chimps is that Pan bonobo - which shares
the genetic structure of the chimp - is ignored because its "peaceful
nature," *within the frame of reference being advanced here*, refutes the
claims of the sociobiologically inclined. This is because of something
Alan Spector made quite clear: the frame of reference is an ideological
one; thus it doesn't even judge itself by its own criteria! Moreover, it
is a reactionary frame of reference.
It isn't, therefore, "tough for many people to accept the fact that humans
are bunch of animals" - this is generally acknowledged. What *is* tough
for people to accept, and what they must not accept, is the fallacious
argument that because humans are animals this automatically makes the
claims of sociobiologists true and at the same times makes the claims of
their opponents, in the words of the Nazis who fund sociobiological
research, "biological egalitarians."
Nobody here - I don't think - needs an introductory lecture in Darwinian
evolution. What would be more appropriate to the list is a discussion of
how hominid evolution bears on social formation. And such a discussion
must be pursued scientifically, not through ideological appeals to human
nature. Evolutionary psychology, simply a rehash of views long debunked,
perhaps at best representing a more stealth version of the same racist
crap that has unfortunately found no lack of funding and audience over the
past several decades, does not advance our understanding of social
formation. It is an ideological distortion to be debunked (it already has
been debunked). And it is a political program to be exposed (it already
has been exposed).
The origin of this research is, in large measure, found in the funding and
under the direction of racist-eugenicists. Spector can tell you about
this, as well. Those of us who have studied the social network of
sociobiologists are well-aware of the political-ideological core of the
program. See also the work of Steve Rosenthal and Russ Bellant.
Oh, but surely the science, despite who funds the work, is sound. Don't be
so sure. One of their primary modes of analysis, cited by Jay himself, has
been the twins studies, where, for example, researchers have demonstrated
that 50% of religious preference - that is, whether somebody is Jewish or
Catholic - is explained by genetics. Hard science this is: religion is in
the genes. (I must be a born atheist; although it must have been a
recessive gene.) So Jews really are a different genetic race. Jay must
learn to be a better propagandist.
Consider, for example, that the information Jay posted to this list
regarding these matters is a false representation of one of the files it
draws upon. The file from http://www.skeptic.com/04.1.miele-immoral.html
is not a positive review of sociobiology; indeed, in the file racists like
Philippe Rushton are cited as being in the forefront of evolutionary
psychological research. Most of the ideologues of evolutionary psychology
do not cite Rushton, or several other leaders in the field, because work
by debunkers has revealed the political force behind their sociobiology.
That Rushton is cited is a good indication that the file Jay found is
hostile to - or at least objective about - evolutionary psychology.
Who is Philippe Rushton? He claims that there is an evolutionary
trade-off between head size and penis size and that this explains why,
according to him, black people have big penises and small heads.
Also in the files Jay referenced there is the claim that chimpanzees
express very little sexual dimorphism. Compared to what? The Black Widow
Spider?
Yes indeed, Jay's claims rest on hard science.
Andy