let's see if i can remove myself from the ranks of the absurd to the
near-absurd with one example of a falsifiable if-then proposition:
if we are wired to behave (to some unknown degree, granted) hierarchically
(we're talking dominance vs. submissiveness here), then those radicals who
expect people to adjust to equal, fraternal and free social arrangements
just by rearranging the social institutions are doomed in their attempts.
considering the large numbers of failures of such attempts throughout
history (wasn't the "dictatorship of the proletariat" supposed to wither
away?), why is that statement absurd?
norm
-----Original Message-----
From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:39 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:5871] RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
In order to know how genetics "limits" us, we would need to know what we
would otherwise be capable of if but for our genetic structure (the facts of
which we do not fully understand, let alone what we might dream up). This is
something of a nonfalsifiable proposition, isn't it, if we depart from the
obvious (like we cannot fly unaided because we have no wings)? Since the
discussion appears to presuppose social behavioral genes, the argument
strikes me as absurd.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-----Original Message-----
From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 7:48 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
whoa, austin .... just one minute .... please!
i read your drift that you don't agree with my expert opinions.
first, who is "we", like in "We know it is."? the entire world except me?
if so, then i vociferously object!!!
i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits
how we behave. further, that social engineers need proceed with caution.
e.g., when falling from a tree, a person can't right him/herself like a cat
no matter how much learning the person has because the cat is genetically
programmed to perform that behavior better than a human. however, a
trampolinist who jumps straight up can use his/her given genetic endowment
to fall flat on his/her back by bringing his/her arms swiftly over the head
and a high diver can turn through many movements by moving parts of the body
in different ways. same principle, but genetic hard-wiring limits what
humans can do. (i like those examples because it is an excellent example of
Newton's third law and conservation of angular momentum for tutoring wayward
Physics students.)
if i hear correctly what you are saying, you would maintain that with
sufficient learning, a person could do what a cat can do too. if so, then
again i object wholeheartedly.
that was an extreme example, of course, but the point of it is that humans
learn upon a genetic endowment that limits the learning.
back to dominance-submissiveness, cooperation-competition, etc. in making
social prescriptions, to be on the safe side for the "public interest", i
would suggest that social engineers assume SOME genetic wiring so that their
prescriptions don't create more problems than they solve. that's why i'm a
"gradualist" for social reform.
please explain in more detail why you object to these views?
norm
-----Original Message-----
From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:06 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:5807] RE: co-ops + human behavior
We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
