On 23 April 2008 Kathy Morgan wrote [snip]: >It is not surprising that a perspective that emphasizes nativism >and evolutionary history should develop in a part of the world >where leadership was still [sic] determined by heredity while a point >of view that emphasized proximate explanations for behavior >such as immediate environmental conditions and instrumental >conditioning (focus on individual learning and accomplishment) >would develop in a young nation in which Horatio Alger was >idealizing the American dream (i.e., that nothing but your own drive >and skills stood in the way of your being whatever you wanted to be.)
Kathy: I don't take strong issue with your general thesis, but I do with your using the word "still"! In the interests of historical accuracy, Lorenz and von Frisch did their early work post World War 2, when Germany was a republic (Weimar), and leadership was not determined by heredity. Tinbergen was Dutch, and Holland was a parliamentary democracy in which the monarchy effectively had no power, and leadership was constituted in the prime minister on behalf of the Dutch parliament. But I accept that traditional mindsets played a role in the differing perspectives, at least in the case of the United States. I think this is probably less so in the case of the Europeans, all three of whom had a background of early childhood fascination with animals in natural surroundings that led to their becoming ethologists. Edward O. Wilson is an example of an American whose ethological career derived from equivalent childhood interests in creatures in their natural surroundings. It is, I think, inevitable that Darwinian evolutionary theory would have formed the basis (implicit or explicit) for any theoretical ideas arising from such studies. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
