Re: The biological goal of the human mind

Jay,  We can agree that these sciences have gone a long way in 
explaining human behavior, without assuming that  genes 
determine all our basic dispositions, feelings, and ideas. Except for 
stating the obvious that our behavior is affected by our genes, none of 
the passages you list below is a convincing explanation in favor of
genetic determinism, that genes provide the key to what we are as humans. 
Genetic scientists are as ignorant as hell outside their fields. I 
wonder if it is possible for genes to reflect about themselves as 
self-relflecting beings without transcending themselves.

> Actually, evolutionary psychology, molecular biology, and behavioral
> genetics have gone a long way towards explaining human behavior.   This
> should not be surprising because we have known that genes drive behavior for
> over 400 years:
> 
> "In 1576, the earliest English-language book on dogs classified
> breeds primarily on the basis of behavior. For example, terriers
> were bred to creep into burrows to drive out small animals.
> Behavioral classification of dogs continues today." [ pp. 58-59.
> BEHAVIORAL GENETICS: Third Edition, Plomin et al; Freeman, 1997]
> 
> The biological goal (thought to be about 50% to 80% of behavior) of the
> human mind is simply to reproduce the genes that created it. To ascribe any
> other innate "goals" to human behavior is to enter the domain of
> "metaphysics".
> 
> For those who are interested in understanding human behavior, here are a few
> good references:
> 
> "The emerging science of molecular biology has made startling discoveries
> that show beyond a doubt that genes are the single most important factor
> that distinguishes one person from another. We come in large part ready-made
> >from the factory. We accept that we look like our parents and other blood
> relatives; we have a harder time with the idea that we also act like them.
> In other species, we value and encourage genetic differences in
> 'personality.' Consider the difference between a Wisconsin dairy cow and a
> bull from Pamplona, or a golden retriever and a pit bull. Human breeding is
> less orderly, but children do share personality traits with their parents.
> Every grown man has experienced a shock of realization when he does
> something exactly like his father before him. Every mother has a similar
> experience when a child behaves exactly like her. This is not bad; it's
> beautiful. This does not mean we are doomed to become our parents; it means
> we begin our journeys where our parents left off." [pp. 11,12, LIVING WITH
> OUR GENES: Why They Matter More Than You Think, by Dean Homer & Peter
> Copeland; Doubleday, 1988 ]
> ==============
> 
> "[ Evolutionary scientists ] Somit and Peterson provide an informative
> account of the evolutionary basis for our historical (and current)
> opposition to democracy. For many, this will be an unwelcome message - like
> being told that one's fly is unzipped. But after a brief bout of anger, we
> tend to thank the messenger for sparing us further embarrassment."
> [  Robert E. Lane, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Yale
> University, and Past President, American Political Science Association,
> commenting on DARWINISM, DOMINANCE, AND DEMOCRACY: The Biological Bases of
> Authoritarianism, by Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson; Review at
> http://info.greenwood.com/books/0275958/0275958175.html ]
> ==============
> 
> INCOMPATIBILITY OF EVOLUTIONARY AND NONEVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS
> 
> Must evolutionary and nonevolutionary explanations make different
> predictions? To answer this question consider two sets of explanations. The
> first set contains explanations that were explicitly constructed with
> evolutionary theory in mind. The second set contains explanations that were
> developed without any explicit knowledge of evolutionary theory. However,
> some of these latter explanations, such as commonsense explanations like,
> "Blood is thicker than water," and, "It is a wise father that knows his own
> child," are compatible with evolutionary theory, although they were devised
> without knowledge of it. Other members of this second set, such as those
> designed to explain true altruism, where fitness costs outweigh benefits,
> are incompatible with the logic of evolution by natural selection. Thus, the
> greater set of all explanations that are compatible with evolutionary theory
> includes all of Set I and some overlap from Set 2.
> 
> Explanations that are not compatible with evolutionary theory can be thought
> of as "warp drive" explanations because warp drive is what the crew of the
> Starship Enterprise use when they wish to violate Einstein's theory of
> relativity to travel faster than the speed of light. Developing explanations
> of physical phenomena that violate Einstein's theory of relativity is risky,
> as is developing explanations about behavior that violate Darwin's theory of
> evolution by natural selection. Hence, it is likely that any good
> explanation of behavior will be compatible with an evolutionary explanation,
> even if it were not explicitly developed from an evolutionary perspective.
> Although a good explanation of behavior need not have been explicitly
> constructed from an evolutionary perspective, the contributors to this
> volume are committed to the proposition that an explicit consideration of
> evolutionary theory will improve the quality of explanations of human
> behavior.
> 
> Why do they believe this? First, explicit evolutionary thinking can
> sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior
> (Symons, 1987). For example, it has been seen that explanations that
> implicitly assume organisms have evolved to act for the good of their group
> or species should be treated with considerable skepticism. In addition, use
> of the theory can sometimes help prevent one from making and accepting
> moralistic fallacies--where one assumes that what ought to be actually is.
> Consider some examples. Stepparents ought to treat their natural and
> stepchildren equally. However, when Daly and Wilson (1980) applied
> evolutionary thinking to the problem of child abuse, they found that
> stepparents were a major source of abuse. There ought not to be conflict
> within families, but Trivers (1974) has used evolutionary theory to help us
> understand the within-family conflict that has perplexed us for generations.
> Recently, Haig (1993) argued for the occurrence of mother-offspring conflict
> during gestation. Men and women ought to have the same intellectual
> abilities, but Silverman and Eals (1992) have been able to use evolutionary
> thinking to predict and explain gender differences in some perceptual
> abilities. A rigorous application of evolutionary theory may help us
> identify and deal with other oughts that contradict reality.
> 
> Second, because the theory of evolution explains the evolution of all life
> forms, concepts developed when using it are likely to be very general.
> Kinship theory (Hamilton, 1964), parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972),
> sexual-selection theory (Darwin, 1871/1898), and reciprocity theory
> (Trivers, 1971), for example, have been used to explain behavior in a great
> many species of animals. For many, it is intellectually satisfying to use
> the same theoretical framework, such as kin selection, to help explain
> sterile castes in worker bees, wasps, and ants (Hamilton, 1964); alarm
> calling in ground squirrels (Sherman, 1977); helping at the nest in jays
> (Woolfenden & Fitzpatrick, 1984); suicide in humans (de Catanzaro, 1991);
> the naming of natural and adoptive children (Johnson, McAndrew, & Harris,
> 1991); mortality and risk during a crisis year (McCullough & Barton, 1991);
> genetic relatedness, the biological importance of a decision, and decision
> rules (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994); village fissioning among
> hunter-gatherers (Chagnon & Irons, 1979); and whom new babies are said to
> resemble (Daly & Wilson, 1982).
> 
> Third, and most important, the theory of evolution can be used to help
> scholars and scientists develop substantive testable predictions about human
> behavior. Cosmides (1989) used it to make predictions about content effects
> in logical reasoning. Silverman and Eals (1992) used it to make predictions
> about gender differences in spatial abilities. Singh (1993) used it to make
> predictions about preferences for body images. Buss (1994) used it to make
> predictions about gender differences in mate choice criteria and tactics for
> acquiring mates. Orians and Heerwagen (1992) used it to make predictions
> about evoked responses to landscapes. Several chapters in Part III of this
> book discuss recent research in which various aspects of evolutionary theory
> were used to derive testable predictions about human behavior.
> [pp. 8-10, HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY:
> Ideas Issues and Applications, Eds. Charles Crawford & Dennis Krebs;
> Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998 http://www.erlbaum.com/2621.htm
> 
> Jay
> -------------------------
> COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
> http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
> 
>