« I Know Thee, Hackney Trev | Main | Big England No.17: by Tom Freeman »

September 22, 2006

Comments

Liz

I would agree, I'm mainly with Rose on this. However, there are some people on the nurture side of the debate who seem to claim that genes play no part in behaviour, which is just as reductionist as those who claim we are nothing but a product of our genes. I don't like absolutism either way!

Dave Hill

Rose was pretty much described as one of those nurturers you mention in Dylan Evans's "Introducing Evolutionary Psychology". He threatened legal action and the offending description was blacked out.

Marie

My beef with sociobiology is the poor quality of observation that often goes with it. Take that article you linked to in your CiF post - the one about women losing their sex drive after they have secured their man. No cross-cultural comparative data at all. What you see in the UK is apparently exactly the same as what you'd get all over the planet - no need to check. What is the point of sociobiological explanations of poorly observed phenomena? It's just using the language of genes to reinforce lazy assumptions about culturally specific behaviour. I'm not saying there is no room for sociobiology, just establish your hypotheses properly, please, before you go about "proving" them.

And returning to the dreadful article quoted, nobody seemed to make any link at all with the women surveyed losing interest in sex and the men surveyed not thinking that tenderness is important. No. It couldn't be anything to do with that. It must be in the genes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

My books

Blog powered by Typepad