I always thought that E. O. Wilson got dismissed on grounds that had little to do with what he was trying to say. This was especially painful as Stephen J. Gould and his column, "This View of Life" in Natural History magazine was the chief reason i subscribed to that periodical for so long. It seemed to me that he was being accused of reductionism by critics who were themselves reducing his arguments to terms far more simplistic than those he had employed.
The frame seems to be that it must either be genetic or it must be nurture that accounts for the majority of our individual make-up. It seems to me that it must be both genetic and cultural in order for evolution to have occurred. Wilson takes an even more complex position when he notes that evolution acts at many levels, including the individual and the group. He also proposes that the distinct evolutionary processes occurring in the levels of the group and the individual themselves interact.
Wilson is very well respected within his specialty of entomology. Much, possibly most, of the complexity he describes he had observed in social insects. Proposing an unnecessary level of complexity is a violation of Occam's Razor--make no unnecessary assumptions. Denying demonstrable complexity is itself reductionism. Purely on a level of meta analysis, if such complexity can be shown to emerge in organisms with nervous systems as simple as ants, it is hard to imagine that they would not also apply to humans. With us, the very reason for the existence of much of our brains is to enable complex social interactions.
If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
The nature v nurture debate has a long history, and I agree with you that the gestalt of all this complexity is that both play a part. And they interact.
What I try to illuminate is that understanding the self-organization of the brain, and how that leads to mind, is no threat to past, present and future Mozarts. But I would like that understanding to help reduce the terrible things that we humans do to each other.
And thanks for you support - I am often quite lonely when I bring this subject up with the alpha males ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
I am often quite lonely when I bring this subject up with the alpha males
Oh, come on! "Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char
Fortunately, the sort of evidence traditionally accepted in the "hard" sciences is starting to emerge in current Brain Science work. It is increasingly possible to form testable hypothesies regarding brain function and obtain confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence with techniques such as PET scans that will show which areas "light up" under which conditions. Should be interesting for us in the next few years. If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
What we need is transcendence of the entire issue.
Spotted while searching the ET archives, this is a good example of transcendence (interesting thread & post, too).
I believe that this view does transcend the old nature/nurture controversy and agree that it is now a pointless debate. My sense is that behavioral/genetic interaction approach underlies a lot of current research and can often generate testable hypothesies. Ann Fausto-Sterling's approach also transcends older frames and is, I believe, consistent with, if not an example of what I am describing.
Unfortunately, old frames such as nature-nurture unavoidably pop up in our minds unbidden if we have had significant prior experience with them. Only by putting them into conscious awareness can we choose more appropriate frames. If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
I am so bored with "what part of the brain lights up (under the scan)"! I don't say this has no use--Actually, that is part of the problem: The mind control people are finding plenty of uses.
It just isn't that helpful if you want to do good things rather than evil ones.
The mind control people are finding plenty of uses.
Sadly, in coercive applications it does have the potential to be a superior lie detector at least. The dark side is always with us. But these techniques have also provided empirical evidence of functional assemblages of various areas of the brain involved in specific tasks. That is something that can't be done from dead brains and anatomy. If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
I do know that anthropologists for whom I had respect discouraged any consideration of the work. One of my quirks is a tendency to attempt to find diamonds in dung hills, especially when the dung hill was created by critics hurling it at some shunned individual. Perhaps an over reaction to my reading of Thomas Kuhn. There is no substitute for careful investigation of such an issue. If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
