Self-interest goes a very long way to explaining human behavior. Yet when we educate our young, we prefer to bias them, focusing their attention on the virtues of undiscriminate altruism. Why? In Friday’s issue of
I'm not sure about the premise that children aren't taught about selfishness...there's plenty about the darker side of human nature in humanities subjects like history and eng. lit. (Shakespeare!).
I think there could be a Typical Nerd Fallacy in assuming that kids dont learn about thses nasty things (because nerds disdain humanities subjects) and that you need sociobiology to learn them (because that's where nerds learn them).
g—‘and determinism hasn’t been falsified.’ You are correct. It is not even possible to falsify determinism.I want to thank-you for your patience. You have helped me understand that the conclusions I draw from the evidence are not shared by all reasoning people, and that in order to communicate I need to be more specific and take fewer things for granted.I often assume that people have a similar data base to mine (which is obviously stupid as I write that).Thank-you again.
Douglas, I wasn't referring to the missing "s" on "materialist" but to the opening of the sentence: "It's strong from is total consilience". Actually, reading it again it's pretty clear what happened -- it should be "Its strong form is total consilience", yes? -- and I can believe that with all the typos fixed it is in fact what Wilson said. Its interesting that even this quote-mined remark from Wilson makes it clear that he's distinguishing between a "strong form" of consilience and some weaker version (presumably defined, or at least adumbrated, in what came before your quotation). Do you really take him to be saying that everything he's worked on would collapse if he had to give up the "strong form" and make do with the weak one?
I doubt that "sociobiology" is sharply enough defined for there to be any experimental observation that would overturn it. (I'd say the same about "physics" or "psychology", but that doesn't make those branches of philosophy or pseudoscience.) Sociobiology is a field of study, not a proposition.
No, I'm not arguing ad hominem when I say you sound like a creationist. I'm pointing out what a lot of debating tactics you share with the creationists, which you might care about (1) because you might prefer not to sound like a creationist or (2) because those debating tactics aren't generally conducive to arriving at truth. And in this specific instance, I pointed out a specific way in which your "sounding like a creationist" was a matter of actual logical unsoundness.
I've no idea on what grounds you say that my statements about physics are non sequiturs. (Non sequuntur?) I retracted my appeal to Bohm's theory in response to your statement (which I haven't checked) that there are important things no one's found a way to make it work for. How does that not follow? I replied to your statement that the Everett interpretation of QM "fails to solve the basis problem" by disagreeing about the existence of any such problem that needs solving and indicating briefly (but, I'd overoptimistically hoped, clearly) why I don't think there is one. How does that not follow?
... Ah, I see; I think I misunderstood what you meant by "the basis problem". That would be because what you turn out to mean (if you mean the same thing as Zurek describes in words that somewhat resemble yours) is obviously not a "problem" for the Everett interpretation in the sense of something that makes it less probable. (It's like saying that Newtonian mechanics is in trouble because of the Three-Body Problem.) My apologies for the misunderstanding.
There is nothing in Zurek's article that supports your contention that the Everett interpretation is any way invalidated by its alleged failure to solve the "basis problem". Quite the reverse; it suggests a particular way of attacking it, which he clearly regards as just as applicable to the Everett approach as to others.
You still haven't indicated in any way I can make sense of how sociobiology is dependent on anything that was falsified 100 years ago. In particular, it is not dependent on determinism (and the quotation from Wilson that you provide gives no reason to think it is) and determinism has not been falsified.
g- I missed typed. My quote would be accurate if I had put an ‘s’ after the word ‘materialist’ above.You asked for references about physics, I gave you two. Your reply suggests that you failed to avail yourself of the knowledge therein, as your statements re: physics are non sequitur.I asked for an example of an observation or experiment that would overturn sociobiology- you supplied none. This would be a reasonable way to change my mind regarding the nature of the subject.You say I “sound like a creationist” using what I take to be an ‘ad hominem’ attack.When I give you references and give you a clear indication of what I would accept as evidence that would get me to rethink my position, I would appreciate that you at least speak to the issues.Thank-you.
1. isn't even grammatical (so I doubt it's exactly what he wrote);
2. doesn't say that sociobiology is dependent on the position he describes (and the fact that he's happy to say "it could be wrong" about the latter suggests that he doesn't think it is);
3. doesn't describe that position as determinism (which you could say has been falsified without outright insanity) but physicalism (which, unless you are trying to suggest that Wilson had never heard of quantum mechanics when he wrote it, clearly doesn't contradict QM);
4. says, at the absolute most, what *Wilson*'s view of the world is based on. Sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology, or whatever you want to call it, isn't the same thing as "what Wilson does". This is just like the way creationists talk about "Darwinism" instead of "evolutionary biology" and seem to think that when they identify anything unsatisfactory in Darwin's own thinking they've dealt a serious blow to evolution. (I know you aren't a creationist, but you sound exactly like one a lot of the time.)
There is no "basis problem" any more than there is an "of all the billions of people in the world, how come I'm *me* rather than any of the others?" problem.
(I'll take your word about Bohm and particle creation and annihilation, at least for purposes of argument. I think many-worlds is a much better approach anyway.)
g- I didn’t know my comments were extravagentFrom "Consilience" by Edward O Wilson-page 55 on reductionism-
“ It’s strong from is total consilience, which holds that nature is organized by simple universal laws of physics to which all other laws and principles can eventually be reduced. This transcendental world view is the light and way for many scientific materialist (I admit to being among them), but it could be wrong.”So my statement that Mr. Wilson’s work (and that would include sociobiology) is based on a metaphysical/ philosophical worldview is not extravagent. I know of no experimental tests of this theory, or any possible readings of it that could not accept any observation whatsoever. (It is a philosophy, not a science). I would be interested in any information you could provide to the contrary.To say that world view was falsified is to say that there is no current understanding of physics that yields completely to any known laws. That is to say that all tenable interpretations of physics include free choices of observers.Bohm’s pilot-wave model does not accommodate relativistic particle creation and annihilation- both are features of the universe in which we live. All attempts to fix this problem have ended in failure.The Many Worlds fails to solve the basis problem (why do I experience only one outcome?). For a useful discussion of this problem see “Mindful Universe” by Stapp,Or Zurek arXiv/quant-ph/0306072.
By the way- I really love Mr. Wilson for his work in conservation and the preservation of the biosphere.
Douglas, you keep making these extravagant claims about science that are simply not true. Please either desist, or offer enough details of what you consider constitutes falsification so that readers can work out what your comments mean and judge how seriously to take them.
So, for instance: what on earth are you talking about here? My best guess -- which is pretty absurd, so I hope it's wrong -- is that you claim that (1) sociobiology is dependent on physical determinism and (2) physical determinism was refuted by the advent of quantum mechanics. Well, #1 is obviously 100% untrue and I can't see how anyone not completely in thrall to an ideology could either believe it or say it; #2 is overstated at best, since (e.g.) "many-worlds" and Bohm are both deterministic interpretations of QM.
I see no reason not to teach children about self-interest and altruism. Both phenomena are easily observable and could lead to a fruitful discussion about how they could or should act.I see no reason to teach anyone sociobiology, as it is a philosophical/metaphysical theory based on a notion of the physical universe that was falsified over 100 years ago.Perhaps there is a reason to teach sociobiology then-- as a cautionary tail as to how a belief in the 'truth' of any scientific theory can lead to blinding bias.
Ok, late to comment here, as I am reading this blog from the beginning. Don't feel obliged to respond to any of this unless you see an obvious error.
Nietzche's claim that “society encourages self-sacrifice because the unselfish sucker is an asset to others” forgets the fact that society does nothing, its the individuals in society that do things, the teachers, and the curriculum setters for example. On an individual level, they personally are not benefited by their students not understanding the concepts and origins of self-interest clearly.
Barash's claim that we should "Teach what we know, but do so in age-appropriate stages", is self-evident, we do the same for all subjects. We do not teach advanced calculus to kindergartners either. But in practice, it seems we usually let students graduate from high school with no explicit coverage of altruism and selfishness, and all they seem to pick up (in and out of school) is that one is "good' and the other is "bad".
And of course much perceived altruism is biased self-deception, where people interpret their own actions as altruistic, for reasons such as improving their own self-image, social status signaling, and attracting mates. Recognizing this helps us maintain a more accurate self-image.
"What price do we pay ... for overcoming bias? you ask. I would ask the reverse - what price do we pay for not encouraging people to learn to recognize and overcome bias? Its in their own best interest to do so, and if teenagers *were* taught that altruism is not necessarily the opposite of selfishness, and that selfishness is not necessarily a bad thing, but a necessary part of survival, then maybe they would understand the negative effect of bias in decision making.
Haha. I probably should read through everything before commenting.
Robyn, sociobiology shouldn't be taught to high schoolers because most schools don't have the teachers necessary to teach it properly. For top-of-the-line high schools with the right teachers, these "socio-biological" issues should be part of a a broader philosophy class that every kid should take.
Also, I don't believe there is any such thing as an "unselfish sucker." People perform unselfish acts out of a deep personal need and by performing these acts they become happier. They may look like suckers to the outsider, but so what? People live to pursue happiness, and if they can find it through unselfish acts, then so much the better.
Real suckers are those who do altruistic deeds they don't want to do: like, for example the kid who gets bullied out of his lunch money, and then rationalizes why it's ok for himself to be bullied out of his lunch money. He's the real sucker.
["So my visceral reaction to Barash's suggestion is "You're right, we shouldn't be teaching ev-psych in high school. We should be teaching it in fourth grade."]
[Are there comparable basic concepts in sociobiology that are appropriate for an eight-year old, or even a 14-year-old? Consider that, as a field, economics is something like 300 years old, and it hasn't really even cracked the middle schools, let alone the elementary schools. Sociobiology is less than 50 years old. Are sociobiologists prepared with a near-consensus on some concepts, where they are quite ready to say to a ten-year-old "be on the lookout for evolved personality characteristic X, to which you don't want to fall prey"?]
In the comment section: If you meant to say "teenager" please say "teenager" or "high school student" and not "kid" or "children." "Children" are adorable, cute little things that like to roll around on the floor in circles. "Teenagers" are gangly, pimple-faced, angst-driven immature and uncomfortable half-adults with silly concepts of the world.
Zhoung, "kids" doesn't necessarily mean elementary school; the quote was regarding high school, an age when kids surely are able to learn to trade chess pieces, and to gain insight from trading in classroom markets.
I'm not sure about the premise that children aren't taught about selfishness...there's plenty about the darker side of human nature in humanities subjects like history and eng. lit. (Shakespeare!).
I think there could be a Typical Nerd Fallacy in assuming that kids dont learn about thses nasty things (because nerds disdain humanities subjects) and that you need sociobiology to learn them (because that's where nerds learn them).
You might as well say physics is easily observable. Most teaching is giving shortcuts to ideas that are deducible in principles.
So perhaps you'd like to start :-) by explaining what it is that (1) was falsified a century ago and (2) sociobiology couldn't exist without.
g—‘and determinism hasn’t been falsified.’ You are correct. It is not even possible to falsify determinism.I want to thank-you for your patience. You have helped me understand that the conclusions I draw from the evidence are not shared by all reasoning people, and that in order to communicate I need to be more specific and take fewer things for granted.I often assume that people have a similar data base to mine (which is obviously stupid as I write that).Thank-you again.
Douglas, I wasn't referring to the missing "s" on "materialist" but to the opening of the sentence: "It's strong from is total consilience". Actually, reading it again it's pretty clear what happened -- it should be "Its strong form is total consilience", yes? -- and I can believe that with all the typos fixed it is in fact what Wilson said. Its interesting that even this quote-mined remark from Wilson makes it clear that he's distinguishing between a "strong form" of consilience and some weaker version (presumably defined, or at least adumbrated, in what came before your quotation). Do you really take him to be saying that everything he's worked on would collapse if he had to give up the "strong form" and make do with the weak one?
I doubt that "sociobiology" is sharply enough defined for there to be any experimental observation that would overturn it. (I'd say the same about "physics" or "psychology", but that doesn't make those branches of philosophy or pseudoscience.) Sociobiology is a field of study, not a proposition.
No, I'm not arguing ad hominem when I say you sound like a creationist. I'm pointing out what a lot of debating tactics you share with the creationists, which you might care about (1) because you might prefer not to sound like a creationist or (2) because those debating tactics aren't generally conducive to arriving at truth. And in this specific instance, I pointed out a specific way in which your "sounding like a creationist" was a matter of actual logical unsoundness.
I've no idea on what grounds you say that my statements about physics are non sequiturs. (Non sequuntur?) I retracted my appeal to Bohm's theory in response to your statement (which I haven't checked) that there are important things no one's found a way to make it work for. How does that not follow? I replied to your statement that the Everett interpretation of QM "fails to solve the basis problem" by disagreeing about the existence of any such problem that needs solving and indicating briefly (but, I'd overoptimistically hoped, clearly) why I don't think there is one. How does that not follow?
... Ah, I see; I think I misunderstood what you meant by "the basis problem". That would be because what you turn out to mean (if you mean the same thing as Zurek describes in words that somewhat resemble yours) is obviously not a "problem" for the Everett interpretation in the sense of something that makes it less probable. (It's like saying that Newtonian mechanics is in trouble because of the Three-Body Problem.) My apologies for the misunderstanding.
There is nothing in Zurek's article that supports your contention that the Everett interpretation is any way invalidated by its alleged failure to solve the "basis problem". Quite the reverse; it suggests a particular way of attacking it, which he clearly regards as just as applicable to the Everett approach as to others.
You still haven't indicated in any way I can make sense of how sociobiology is dependent on anything that was falsified 100 years ago. In particular, it is not dependent on determinism (and the quotation from Wilson that you provide gives no reason to think it is) and determinism has not been falsified.
g- I missed typed. My quote would be accurate if I had put an ‘s’ after the word ‘materialist’ above.You asked for references about physics, I gave you two. Your reply suggests that you failed to avail yourself of the knowledge therein, as your statements re: physics are non sequitur.I asked for an example of an observation or experiment that would overturn sociobiology- you supplied none. This would be a reasonable way to change my mind regarding the nature of the subject.You say I “sound like a creationist” using what I take to be an ‘ad hominem’ attack.When I give you references and give you a clear indication of what I would accept as evidence that would get me to rethink my position, I would appreciate that you at least speak to the issues.Thank-you.
Douglas, your alleged quotation from E O Wilson
1. isn't even grammatical (so I doubt it's exactly what he wrote);
2. doesn't say that sociobiology is dependent on the position he describes (and the fact that he's happy to say "it could be wrong" about the latter suggests that he doesn't think it is);
3. doesn't describe that position as determinism (which you could say has been falsified without outright insanity) but physicalism (which, unless you are trying to suggest that Wilson had never heard of quantum mechanics when he wrote it, clearly doesn't contradict QM);
4. says, at the absolute most, what *Wilson*'s view of the world is based on. Sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology, or whatever you want to call it, isn't the same thing as "what Wilson does". This is just like the way creationists talk about "Darwinism" instead of "evolutionary biology" and seem to think that when they identify anything unsatisfactory in Darwin's own thinking they've dealt a serious blow to evolution. (I know you aren't a creationist, but you sound exactly like one a lot of the time.)
There is no "basis problem" any more than there is an "of all the billions of people in the world, how come I'm *me* rather than any of the others?" problem.
(I'll take your word about Bohm and particle creation and annihilation, at least for purposes of argument. I think many-worlds is a much better approach anyway.)
g- I didn’t know my comments were extravagentFrom "Consilience" by Edward O Wilson-page 55 on reductionism-
“ It’s strong from is total consilience, which holds that nature is organized by simple universal laws of physics to which all other laws and principles can eventually be reduced. This transcendental world view is the light and way for many scientific materialist (I admit to being among them), but it could be wrong.”So my statement that Mr. Wilson’s work (and that would include sociobiology) is based on a metaphysical/ philosophical worldview is not extravagent. I know of no experimental tests of this theory, or any possible readings of it that could not accept any observation whatsoever. (It is a philosophy, not a science). I would be interested in any information you could provide to the contrary.To say that world view was falsified is to say that there is no current understanding of physics that yields completely to any known laws. That is to say that all tenable interpretations of physics include free choices of observers.Bohm’s pilot-wave model does not accommodate relativistic particle creation and annihilation- both are features of the universe in which we live. All attempts to fix this problem have ended in failure.The Many Worlds fails to solve the basis problem (why do I experience only one outcome?). For a useful discussion of this problem see “Mindful Universe” by Stapp,Or Zurek arXiv/quant-ph/0306072.
By the way- I really love Mr. Wilson for his work in conservation and the preservation of the biosphere.
Douglas, you keep making these extravagant claims about science that are simply not true. Please either desist, or offer enough details of what you consider constitutes falsification so that readers can work out what your comments mean and judge how seriously to take them.
So, for instance: what on earth are you talking about here? My best guess -- which is pretty absurd, so I hope it's wrong -- is that you claim that (1) sociobiology is dependent on physical determinism and (2) physical determinism was refuted by the advent of quantum mechanics. Well, #1 is obviously 100% untrue and I can't see how anyone not completely in thrall to an ideology could either believe it or say it; #2 is overstated at best, since (e.g.) "many-worlds" and Bohm are both deterministic interpretations of QM.
I see no reason not to teach children about self-interest and altruism. Both phenomena are easily observable and could lead to a fruitful discussion about how they could or should act.I see no reason to teach anyone sociobiology, as it is a philosophical/metaphysical theory based on a notion of the physical universe that was falsified over 100 years ago.Perhaps there is a reason to teach sociobiology then-- as a cautionary tail as to how a belief in the 'truth' of any scientific theory can lead to blinding bias.
Ok, late to comment here, as I am reading this blog from the beginning. Don't feel obliged to respond to any of this unless you see an obvious error.
Nietzche's claim that “society encourages self-sacrifice because the unselfish sucker is an asset to others” forgets the fact that society does nothing, its the individuals in society that do things, the teachers, and the curriculum setters for example. On an individual level, they personally are not benefited by their students not understanding the concepts and origins of self-interest clearly.
Barash's claim that we should "Teach what we know, but do so in age-appropriate stages", is self-evident, we do the same for all subjects. We do not teach advanced calculus to kindergartners either. But in practice, it seems we usually let students graduate from high school with no explicit coverage of altruism and selfishness, and all they seem to pick up (in and out of school) is that one is "good' and the other is "bad".
And of course much perceived altruism is biased self-deception, where people interpret their own actions as altruistic, for reasons such as improving their own self-image, social status signaling, and attracting mates. Recognizing this helps us maintain a more accurate self-image.
"What price do we pay ... for overcoming bias? you ask. I would ask the reverse - what price do we pay for not encouraging people to learn to recognize and overcome bias? Its in their own best interest to do so, and if teenagers *were* taught that altruism is not necessarily the opposite of selfishness, and that selfishness is not necessarily a bad thing, but a necessary part of survival, then maybe they would understand the negative effect of bias in decision making.
O viés do argumento
Robin Hanson, sobre um artigo que discute sociobiologia. Leia tudo. Claudio...
[insert foot in mouth. Keep foot permanently inserted]. By "kid," I meant "teenager."
Haha. I probably should read through everything before commenting.
Robyn, sociobiology shouldn't be taught to high schoolers because most schools don't have the teachers necessary to teach it properly. For top-of-the-line high schools with the right teachers, these "socio-biological" issues should be part of a a broader philosophy class that every kid should take.
Also, I don't believe there is any such thing as an "unselfish sucker." People perform unselfish acts out of a deep personal need and by performing these acts they become happier. They may look like suckers to the outsider, but so what? People live to pursue happiness, and if they can find it through unselfish acts, then so much the better.
Real suckers are those who do altruistic deeds they don't want to do: like, for example the kid who gets bullied out of his lunch money, and then rationalizes why it's ok for himself to be bullied out of his lunch money. He's the real sucker.
["So my visceral reaction to Barash's suggestion is "You're right, we shouldn't be teaching ev-psych in high school. We should be teaching it in fourth grade."]
[Are there comparable basic concepts in sociobiology that are appropriate for an eight-year old, or even a 14-year-old? Consider that, as a field, economics is something like 300 years old, and it hasn't really even cracked the middle schools, let alone the elementary schools. Sociobiology is less than 50 years old. Are sociobiologists prepared with a near-consensus on some concepts, where they are quite ready to say to a ten-year-old "be on the lookout for evolved personality characteristic X, to which you don't want to fall prey"?]
In the comment section: If you meant to say "teenager" please say "teenager" or "high school student" and not "kid" or "children." "Children" are adorable, cute little things that like to roll around on the floor in circles. "Teenagers" are gangly, pimple-faced, angst-driven immature and uncomfortable half-adults with silly concepts of the world.
Zhoung, "kids" doesn't necessarily mean elementary school; the quote was regarding high school, an age when kids surely are able to learn to trade chess pieces, and to gain insight from trading in classroom markets.