> >I cannot see where the genetic evolution can be paralleled with
> >the development of human social behaviour.
> >I'm sure you read a lot of books I had no time for,
> >but it is still social darwinism, that sounds to me totally
> >irrational.
>
>
> I think of "Social Darwinism" (SD) as a rationalization
> of the stronger in society over the weaker. If that's how
> you are using it, then SD is not science, it is politics.
>
> >The human brain develops the possibilities of interconnectedness, but
> >these interconnectedness only happens through individual experience.
>
>
> Evolutionary theory is very well-established. It can be seen
> by anyone who looks in the fossil record, or in the emergence
> of disease-resistant bacteria. Evolutionary theory is about as
> controversial as a theory that claims the Earth orbits the Sun.
>
who said anything against evolutionary theory?
My point was that the human species did not change
their genetic makeup as a reason or consequence of social
living. I mean they developed centers for speach etc in thee brain,
but even this is a flexible area that could move about and
it developed equally in all individual (healthy) homo sapiens -
nothing to do with the behavioural
patterns that social psychologist deal with.
> All animals exhibit certain species-specific behavior. Have
> you ever owned a cat? In animals we prefer to call their
> propensity to act in certain ways: "instinct". We don't like
> to think of ourselves as being motivated by "instincts", but
> we are.
>
However, we control these instincs very well mostly.
In fact humans by definitions from the beginning started to do that;
to value the community above the individual, for a large minority of
"holy" people choosing not to have sex/children, to have special days without
food etc. The majority of what we do is far from instinctive.
> Evolution does not select for "survival of the species", it
> selects for the "survival of the individual gene". Hence,
> Dawkin's THE SELFISH GENE.
>
> >Also I don't know in what way you are usin here Occam's razor.
>
>
> According to a rule in science and philosophy called "Ockham's
> Razor", the simplest of two or more competing theories is
> preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena
> should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.
>
>
For Pete's sake read my question, I know what Occam razor
is (I am a veteran member of the skeptic list) but I didn't catch
in what respect it was used for.
Jung uses "archetypes" to explain innate behavior:
>
> "Archetypes are typical modes of apprehension, and wherever
> we meet with uniform and regularity recurring modes of
> apprehension .... The collective unconscious consists
> of the sum of the instincts and their correlates, the a
> archetypes. Just as everyone possesses instincts, so
> he also possesses a stock of archetypal images." [p. 37,
> The Portable Jung]
>
> Collective unconscious? <G> This isn't even science.
>
> Jay
>
?? Who is a Jungis around here? Not me!
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
