From: BMSDGATH <BMSDGATH@livjm.ac.uk>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: On Gatherer's behaviourist stance
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:41:22 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 08 Sep 1998 11:47:55 +0200 Mario Vaneechoutte
<Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be> wrote:
> the adaptationist arguments of many evolutionary psychologists, who -
> to paraphrase Bill and Derek - have not understood basic standard books on
> evolution).
I don't recall saying this. I did make some critical remarks about 70s
sociobiology, but I think that sociobiology is another baby-and-bath
water situation. Evolutionary psychology is part of an effort to
reform sociobiology, and make it less crudely adaptationist. As Durham
has said, we had Sociobiology I (crude sociobiology), then Sociobiology
II (gene-culture 'leash' theory). I would regard Evolutionary
Psychology as a kind of Sociobiology III, and it is far enough from the
original package to warrant another name. I definitely don't accuse
Evolutionary Psychologists of failing to comprehend basic evolution -
what I said was that Sociobiology I (crude sociobiology) is bad
genetics.
Sorry if this seems to be hair-splitting, but I don't want any
Evolutionary Psychologists who are listening in to get the wrong
impression.
Derek
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit