On March 21, Stephen wrote in reply to my response to his previous message:
> Well, we're pretty much in agreement. It's just the terminology that's the > problem. I think the difficulty is that we're using the word "biological" > to refer to different aspects of the issue. >[�] >But Allen seems to focus on the mechanism by which >the social experience works, and calls that biological. Stephen, I�m puzzled by your writing this, as the first thing I wrote in my response to your original message was to acknowledge that I was wrong to call the process �biological�! Here is what I wrote, quoting Stephen first: >> Allen's dug up interesting stuff on this question. I just wonder (and >> getting back to Beth's original question) whether it's accurate to >> classify it as evidence in favour of a biological basis. The evidence >> Allen provides supports a mechanism in which an inhibition against sex >> develops if the individuals share early rearing experience. That sounds >> like a social influence to me, although we may be biologically-prepared to >> respond in that way. >Stephen is right, I should have been more careful with my language. So >let�s try again and see how close we can get to agreement. In my view the >evidence of the studies I cited points to a genetic propensity for >siblings to be averse to incest in the normal circumstances in which >siblings are raised together from birth. Pseudo-siblings (if I may coin >the expression, as I don�t know the correct term) tend to experience the >same aversion to sexual relations in adulthood. Given the apparent >mechanism (shall we say genetic programming?), siblings separated at birth >who meet in adulthood do not experience the same aversion to mutual sexual >relations. In other words, I was saying that I was wrong to described the process as �biological�, and replaced it with the term �genetic propensity�. Thereafter, in what followed, I completely dropped the term �biological�, so why are we still discussing it in those terms? Stephen wrote on March 21: > We seem to agree that the evidence supports the position that the > necessary and sufficient condition for incest avoidance is to be reared > together, regardless of biological relatedness. It seems to me that this > would be most accurately termed a social explanation. If, on the other > hand, what counted was biological relatedness, that would be a biological > explanation. > > But Allen seems to focus on the mechanism by which the social experience > works, and calls that biological. I don�t see how this answers my argument in my previous message [especially as it is still rebutting the description �biological�, which I had already disowned], made in response to this very same point (I suggested that the process is neither �social� nor �biological�, but a *combination* of social and genetically innate elements). The paragraphs of mine in question were as follows: > This is where we disagree. I think it is just as erroneous for Stephen > label it �social� as I was to call it �biological�. Virtually any human > genetic propensity (perhaps no qualification is required) occurs in a > social context, and therefore has to have both genetic and social > components. > > To take the example of language, it seems that the human brain is > programmed to have the capacity to learn languages (though not, of course, > any specific language), but if children do not learn one before the age of > about eight (?), they have considerable difficulty doing so, and may > possibly not be able to communicate with other humans by spoken language > at all. So humans have a genetic propensity to learn languages, but do not > do so in the unlikely event that social circumstances preclude its > happening. So is the capacity to learn languages social or genetic? The > answer, surely, is both. So it is neither �genetic�, nor �social�. I think > that saying that humans have a strong genetic propensity (or innate > propensity) to learn languages is fine. The social factor is self-evident > � as I said, human behaviour does not take place in a social vacuum, so > (virtually) all behaviour, no matter how strong the genetic propensity, is > also social. I would understand the description of an aspect of human behaviour as �social� to be purely social, and �innate� as purely genetic. My preference is to say that people have a (greater or lesser) �genetic propensity� for certain behaviours, which implicitly allows for the fact that social factors (of course) are also relevant. If we describe a behaviour in which social factors play an important role (along with genetic propensities) as �social�, how do we distinguish it from behaviours that are purely social (with no genetic influence)? Why not describe the first type of behaviour as one resulting from a combination of social and genetic factors? To reiterate for our specific example: If we describe the sibling �incest aversion� behaviour of humans (including the innate sibling incest aversion propensity apparently demonstrated by the kibbutz study and others) as �social�, how do we distinguish it from the kind of behaviour that is purely the result of social convention (as some argue for sibling incest aversion)? At the very least, such a nomenclature would be a source of confusion. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 --------- Subject: Re: Incest taboos From: "Stephen Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:12:50 -0500 > Allen Esterson said, in reference to my comment that the evidence he cited > supports what is better termed a social, not biological hypothesis: > > > let�s try again and see how close we can get to agreement. In my view the > > evidence of the studies I cited points to a genetic propensity for > > siblings to be averse to incest in the normal circumstances in which > > siblings are raised together from birth. Pseudo-siblings (if I may coin > > the expression, as I don�t know the correct term) tend to experience the > > same aversion to sexual relations in adulthood. Given the apparent > > mechanism (shall we say genetic programming?), siblings separated at birth > > who meet in adulthood do not experience the same aversion to mutual sexual > > relations. > > Well, we're pretty much in agreement. It's just the terminology that's the > problem. I think the difficulty is that we're using the word "biological" > to refer to different aspects of the issue. > > We seem to agree that the evidence supports the position that the > necessary and sufficient condition for incest avoidance is to be reared > together, regardless of biological relatedness. It seems to me that this > would be most accurately termed a social explanation. If, on the other > hand, what counted was biological relatedness, that would be a biological > explanation. > > But Allen seems to focus on the mechanism by which the social experience > works, and calls that biological. I agree, and that's why I used the > phrase "biologically-prepared" to indicate that I also believed that the > reason we respond to shared rearing by developing an incest taboo is > biological, selected for during evolution. But ultimately everything is > biological in that sense, even operant conditioning. Where the two > hypotheses differ is that one says that shared social experience is > necessary while the other says that shared genes are necessary. So I think > it's less confusing to label the former a social hypothesis and the latter > a biological one. > > BTW, I think I've discovered how our posts are leaking to the outside > world. It's not through the TIPS archive, which I doubt is accessible to > Google. It's through the Mail Archive at > http://www.mail-archive.com/tips%40acsun.frostburg.edu/ > > I actually don't mind this, as lots more people get to read us, and the > Mail Archive does suppress our e-mail addresses (nice touch). But I think > we do have to be careful. The whole world is now watching (or could be). > > Stephen > > Stephen Black > Bishop's University > Lennoxville, Quebec > J1M 1Z7 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
