Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA21109 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:58:54 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: RE: memes and sexuality Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:55:06 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F26JPN1YazDWCsuFyhJ0000fd7b@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2001 23:55:06.0452 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D802140:01C0CABE] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: RE: memes and sexuality
>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:15:10 +0100
> <Genetic determination of gun use seems *slightly* questionable to
> > Nevertheless, genetic determination of many other gender-oriented
> > behaviors
> > appear obvious to all but the most idealistic and politically correct
> > ideologues.>
>Well, I think it's more than slightly questionable, but we'll let that one
>lie. Certainly your other point is right, but indicative of just how many
>idealistic and politically correct ideologues are out there, given the
>responses to evolutionary psychology from some quarters.
Are all critics of EP just grinding an axe of political correctness?
It is a given that humans are a product of evolution. Selection and
adaptation are as important to consider in behavior as they are in
morphology. The problem is when one gets into the particulars, such as
taking an aspect of human behavior and putting an adaptive explanation
behind it. One must wonder just how meticulous a scrutinizer selection has
been and how much of human behavior can be considered non-adaptive. Gould's
concepts (however flawed they may be) of exaptation and spandrels warrant a
closer look in this regard. If any discipline might take up the banner of
non-adaptive components to human behavior it might jus be memetics. Too bad
Gould doesn't seem too keen on memetics.
If hardcore EP is taken to be a discipline with a strong hereditarian slant
(versus weaker versions which respect for the "evil standard social science
model" spectre) I'd probably veer more towards a memetic perspective.
A problem with EP is whether its proponents have an appreciation for the
full spectrum of evolutionary thought or whether they look at the world of
human behavior with hyperadaptionist lenses. If they are psych majors
without much of a background in biology and are only going on
popularizations and some reading of Darwin I'd wonder.
Non-adaptive means of evolution have been considered in molecular evolution,
why not behavioral evolution?
And when will a favorite evolutionary hypothesis for a particular part of
human behavior yield to the phrase "we just don't know"?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 22 2001 - 01:02:12 BST