SOCIOBIOLOGY: a NEW CRITICAL ANALYSIS by CRAIG CONRAN

Home , Genetic predisposition, Sociobiology, The Stuff of Thought

SOCIOBIOLOGY: A NEW CRITICAL ANALYSIS

CRAIG CONRAN

Integrated Studies Project

submitted to Dr. Tony Simmons in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

October, 2011

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………3

Part 1: Introduction…………………………………………..4

Part 2: Early Biological Determinism……………………….6

Part 3: The New Science…………………………………….7

Part 4: The New Biology……………………………….….11

Part 5: Sociobiology………………………………………..14

Part 6: Evolutionary Psychology…………………………...23

Part 7: Middle World / Connected World………………….34

Part 8: Conclusion………………………………………….41

Abstract

This research study has been conducted to explore scientific methodology used in

Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology. Both disciplines are explored in the context of the evolutionary history of our understanding of human behavior. Due to the extravagant recent claims in finding a direct cause of certain behaviors, I felt that this research was essential. This study contains a history of the nature/nurture debate as well as recent major assumptions and key concepts in the fields of Sociobiology and

Evolutionary Psychology. At the end of each section, several major criticisms are given for each discipline that demonstrates many of the limitations involved in social science research. The final section explores a starting point and possible paradigm shift for exploring social behavior based on the work of Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins.

These ideas can be used by researchers across disciplines of sociobiology, biology, and psychology as part of a new generation of study on social behavior.

Introduction

Are we the product of our genes or of our environment, or both? The “nature / nurture” debate, as it is commonly known, has undergone significant changes throughout over the last few decades and has evolved into a profusion of ideas and misunderstandings. In 1975 a book was published on this subject that made us rethink how we approach the study of social behavior. Sociobiology: A New Synthesis by the

American biologist E. O. Wilson created an entire academic sub-discipline dedicated to a new type of thought. Unlike previous biologists, psychologists, or anthropologists,

Wilson attempted to scientifically analyze social behavior in terms of evolution and adaptation. He argues that our brains have evolved not only in size and capacity, but also in the development of social behavior. Over time these social behaviors are said to increasingly improve our chance for survival - borrowing from Herbert Spencer and the early work of Lamarck on physical adaptations. These revolutionary ideas sparked an instant academic debate and controversy that has continued to this day. Wilson’s book also created the groundwork for a newer sub-discipline known as evolutionary psychology. Even though this new sub-discipline recognizes the role environment plays in determining social behavior, the main focus still rests on genetics and innate social characteristics. Opponents of these disciplines argue that genes and the evolutionary development of our brain are less powerful than our social environment in determining behavior. So, which side is correct or how do we go about proposing a test to find out?

My interest in the subject and the reason for pursuing this research comes from two events. The first event occurred in a second year sociology course when my instructor took a day to teach us about genetics and the work of Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist. After the lecture, my understanding was that sociology and biology are on opposing sides, with the former being the only true explanation of social behavior. These answers did not make sense, how could we ignore biology when analyzing human behavior? The second event occurred in a seminar class discussion. The topic was along the lines of gender construction and sexuality. During my rebuttal to a student’s argument, I used the word “instinct” and suddenly got cut short. I was told by the instructor not go any further. I felt as though I said something inappropriate which resulted in the discussion coming to a halt. I knew I was not going to be able to just ignore or forget that class. I have always sought after the dark corners, the most challenging subjects and controversial topics and I knew that one day I would return to this debate. The following paper is my effort to address the problems and open the topic for further discussion.

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer that could end this nature/nurture debate.

As we will explore, the environmental and cognitive processes involved in constructing social behavior are too complex to produce a simple answer. Therefore, this project will not attempt to solve the nature / nurture debate, but will instead challenge the current sociobiological paradigm of genetically pre-determined behavior. It is my contention that sociobiological and Evolutionary Psychological claims that propose a direct relationship between genetics and social and cultural behaviors are misguided and unscientific.

Instead, we must understand our limitations on social experimentation and our

connections to the world around us in order to create a foundation for our study of social behavior.

Early Biological Determinism

Even though E. O. Wilson is the credited founder of sociobiology, the origin of the nature/nurture debate stretches over 2300 years of recorded history. Plato, the Greek philosopher from 4 th century BCE Athens, believed that our souls consisted of three parts.

These parts ultimately determine our social behaviors, how we perceive the world around

us and our own existence. Plato describes the first part as “appetitive” or “gain loving.” 1

The social result of this component is “violence of the appetites of hunger, thirst and sex,

and all their accompaniments” 2 The second part is “rational” or “wisdom loving.” 3 Plato explains that the rational part is “wise and has to exercise forethought on behalf of the soul.”4 The final component is the “spirited” or “honor loving” part that “aligns itself with the rational” when there is a division of principles. 5Even though “parts of the soul” may appear to be nothing more than an ancient myth, are these ideas all that far-fetched?

If we ignore the concept of a soul, Plato is telling us that we are all born with an innate need for pleasure, predisposition for violence, and a sense of morality. These ideas appear throughout history and can be seen throughout the evolution of evolutionary psychology.

The beginning of the modern debate began with an introduction of a theory by

British Philosopher, John Locke. Through Locke, we moved away from religious dogma and the inclusion of a soul, or guiding supernatural force, in determining our social

1 Plato, Republic . 360 BCE, Reprinted 1997. Wordsworth Edition, p. 371 2 Ibid., p. 305. 3 Ibid., p. 371. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., pp. 364-371

behavior. Instead, he asserted that our minds are like blank slates, “white paper void of all characters, without any ideas” and that they are developed through “experience.” 6The

theory was controversial but demonstrated a new direction in the understanding of the

human condition. From this philosophy also emerged an egalitarian perspective of

society. We are all born with the same opportunities, if exposed to the same

environmental conditions. However, just as in the work of Plato, there is once again a

separation from mind and body; mind and brain. Two competing theories arose in the 19 th

century that would inevitably change this egalitarian view, but would lead to a much

better understanding of life in general.

The New Science

At the turn of the 19 th century biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed a theory based on the works of Buffon and several others, that life on earth was not static. Instead, he suggested that all forms of life were constantly transforming. 7Lamarck proposed the following; “Everything which has been acquired . . . in the organization of the individuals in the course of their life, is preserved through the reproduction, and is transmitted to the new individuals which spring from those who have undergone these changes.”8 In other

words, adaptive characteristics are constantly acquired through innovative use, and are

then genetically transmitted to the next generation. A common example would be a

giraffe stretching to retrieve leaves atop a tree. Through this stretching, the neck would

6 Ibid. 7 Frans, Stafleu. Lamarck: The Birth of Biology. Taxon. Vol. 20, No. 4 (1971) p. 398. 8 S. Lovtrup. Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth . Croom Helm, London. 1953, p. 53

become longer throughout its lifetime and then transmit this new characteristic to its offspring. 9Even though Lamarck’s ideas on transformations were found to be incorrect, his ideas would lead to Darwin’s revolutionary theory of natural selection (through random genetic mutation).

After a trip to the Galápagos Islands in 1835, Charles Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection. While observing the finches on the island, he concluded that each adapted to different biological niches. Unlike Lamarck’s early work on transformation, Darwin’s suggestions were not teleological, meaning that the organisms did not adapt to their environment for a particular purpose. Instead, dominant characteristics or traits that were favorable to the organism’s survival were passed on by those who lived to reproduce the next generation. In his groundbreaking work On the

Origin of Species, Darwin described natural selection in the following:

Hence it is the most flourishing, or, as they may be called, the dominant

species,—those which range widely over the world, are the most diffused in their

own country, and are the most numerous in individuals,—which oftenest produce

well-marked varieties, or, as I consider them, incipient species. And this, perhaps,

might have been anticipated; for, as varieties, in order to become in any degree

permanent, necessarily have to struggle with the other inhabitants of the country,

the species which are already dominant will be the most likely to yield offspring

which, though in some slight degree modified, will still inherit those advantages

that enabled their parents to become dominant over their compatriots. 10

9 Early Concepts of Evolution: John Baptist Lamarck. Retrieved August 2011 from Berkeley.edu 10 Charles, Darwin. The Origin of Species. New York: Dover Publications. 1859 Reprinted 2006, p. 53

Through Darwin we were able to understand that we as living organisms were not adapting as individuals but rather as a species through the passage of favorable characteristics that were then passed along to our offspring. For the first time in history we now had a theory that explained the origin of human beings that was supported through scientific evidence.

For the world of biology, Darwin formulated an accurate scientific explanation of the evolution of life on earth. For sociology, the misuse of Darwin and the fallacies in

Lamarck’s work continued throughout the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. One notable

example of this misapplication of Darwin’s ideas was the work of Herbert Spencer. He

argued that “the law of Evolution holds of the inner world as it does of the outer world.”11

In other words the evolution of our social world had a purpose, which was driven towards complexity and intelligence. Spencer argued the following in his 1864 work entitled

Principles of Biology :

The survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical

terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called natural selection, or the preservation of

favoured races in the struggle for life. 12

These claims made by Spencer lack the very foundation of modern scientific thought: the scientific method and more closely resembles the work of Lamarck. Without verifiable evidence, we would lack much of the technology that we take for granted today. This reasoning, it could be easily argued, is the most important discovery ever made. The origin of this discovery began as early as the work of Aristotle:

11 Herbert Spencer. Principles of Psychology. 1855, London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longman’s. 12 Herbert Spencer. Principles of Biology. 1864, New York: D Appleton Company.

We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as

opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we

think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact

and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is. 13

Even though this idea of providing evidence for claims dates back to 300BCE and is

generally a simple premise, up until recent work in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, studies in

human social behavior did not necessarily follow this guideline. Of course the modern

scientific method includes more specific requirements, however the basic idea is still

simple: all knowledge claims require supporting evidence. The evidence comes from

observation, experimentation, and requires the theory testing to be repeatable and

checked through a peer review process. Most importantly, if an idea does not survive this

process, then the idea should be discarded for another.

There must never be the least hesitation in giving up a position the moment it is

shown to be untenable. It is not going too far to say that the greatness of a

scientific investigator does not rest on the fact of having never made a mistake,

but rather on his readiness to admit that he has done so, whenever the contrary

evidence is cogent enough. 14

13 Aristotle. Posterior Analytics. Translated by G. R. G. Mure. 384-322-BCE Book 1, Ch. 2.

14 Leonard Bayliss. Principles of General Physiology. 1960 California: Longmans.

The New Biology

Contemporary social science researchers require substantial evidence to support their knowledge claims. Instead of attributing behavior to souls, gods, or other religious dogmas to understand their human condition, researchers began to investigate social behavior among animals. Through what we now term as the new biology or ethology , scientists attempted to apply the results of their studies of animal behavior to humans.

Before World War II, the study of animal behavior was practically non-existent. Konrad

Lorenz, credited as one of the founders of ethology, found his work caught between the disciplines of “psychology and zoology.” 15 The basic foundation of ethology is the search for a biological explanation of animal behavior. One key concept to the discipline explored by Lorenz is the idea of imprinting . 16 Lorenz observed that young goslings,

among other animals instinctually followed “their kind,” usually a parent for warmth. 17

However, he found that this figure did not necessarily have to be a parent, or even of the same species. In fact, he was able to condition a gosling to become attached to himself instead of to another gosling. Lorenz went a step further and was able to separate the

‘instincts’ he observed. The gosling became attached to a turkey-hen for warmth, but still followed a human, waiting at the front door “for a human to emerge.” 18 Lorenz explains

15 Paul Grifiths. History of Ethology comes of Age. 2005. Chicago: Chicago Press, p. 130. 16 Konrad, Lorenz. On Agression. London: Routledge, p. 265. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.

that once we pass the initial innate reaction, imprinting is the process of filling in the gaps with experience. 19

A second key concept of ethology is the idea of fixed action patters (FAPs). Fixed action patterns are behaviors that are common across different species that appear to be instinctual and necessary for survival. One particular FAP focused on in ethology was innate aggression. Lorenz attributed aggression and war to the early survival instincts that once helped early humans to survive in harsh habitats. At the mercy of our instincts, even positive social behavior such as laughing and smiling was attributed by Lorenz to a basic

‘group building’ instinct we share.20 He then expanded on these fixed action patterns of behavior not only to emotions, but to all human behavior, even complex social and cultural systems. Lorenz stated: "Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species” 21 Other ethologists have used similar perspectives to explain aggressive innate instincts. Robert Ardrey, another ethologist and anthropologist during the 1960s, also took an in depth look at aggression and its evolutionary roots. In a work entitled African

Genesis, Ardrey asserts the following:

...the predatory transition [from ape to man] and the weapons fixation explained

for Raymond Dart man's bloody history, his eternal aggression, his irrational, self-

destroying inexorable pursuit of death for death's sake. 22

19 Ibid p. 167. 20 Ibid p. 173. 21 Ibid p. 251. 22 Robert, Ardrey. African Genesis. London: Macmillion Pub Co. p.231.

Ardrey, like Lorenz saw a long history of war and aggressive behavior as substantial evidence of a natural evolutionary adaptation for aggression and therefore was a fixed action pattern among humans.

Such incredible claims elicited strong criticism as well. The majority of critics focused on the mental gap between humans and other animals as well as the anthropomorphizing of animal behavior. We are all animals and share common DNA, however many ethologists have attempted to demonstrate universal fixed behaviors among human and non-humans species. In response to early ethological studies of birds,

Hinde 23 argues that

…it is essential to remember that: (a) the basic structure of the telencephalon of

birds is very different from that of mammals; (b) the synapsid and diapsid reptiles,

from which mammals and birds arose, have been distinct since at least the

Permian; and (c) parental care has evolved independently in the two groups.”

Not only has there been a distinct difference in our evolution but also how we would

define our capacity for conscious thought. Consciousness is a difficult concept to grasp in

humans, and even more difficult to try to define in non-humans. This difficulty arises

because there is no test or experiment that could produce the answer. The question of

consciousness has been a constant debate among scientists and philosophers for

thousands of years. However, to address the problem from a logical, scientific

perspective, we can not assume any similarities in consciousness between humans and

non-humans. This argument is not to say that, for instance, apes are incapable of any sort

23 A. R. Hinde. The establishment of the parent-offspring relation in birds, with some mammalian analogies . 1961 - In: THORPE, W. H. & ZANGWILL, 0. L. (Eds.) Current problems in animal behaviour. Cambridge, University Press, p. 175-193.

of complex understanding of their existence or the surrounding environment. The problem arises when direct comparisons are made between what we believe to be our consciousness and that of other species. An extreme assertion, but nonetheless an excellent point: “If…cleverness were enough to demonstrate consciousness, scientists could do the job over coffee and philosophers could have packed up their scholarly apparatus years ago.”24 Through mistaking cleverness for consciousness, ethologists fall

into the trap of anthropomorphism. Because our lives are constructed around social

interaction, we have been mentally trained to look for certain cues. Even though Darwin

is well established as a corner stone of modern scientific thought, his work entitled The

Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals concentrates on human-like emotions

observed in non-human species. In the preface to the 3 rd edition of this book, Lorenz also declares Darwin as the “Patron saint” of ethology. 25 The next section of this paper will go

into more depth in terms of how anecdotal evidence needs to be held separate from

studies of social behavior. As we move into the 1970s, the development of evolutionary

studies of social behavior changed with the emergence of sociobiology. However, even

though this new discipline was to take a more scientific perspective it still suffered from

similar flaws to that of ethology.

Sociobiology

24 H, Cronin. Review of Griffin. 1992. New York Times Book Review p. 14 25 Charles Darwin . The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, 3rd edn. (Introduction, afterword and commentaries by Paul Ekman. Essay on the history of the illustrations by Phillip Prodger.) 1999. London: Fontana, p. ix-xiii

Sociobiology according to Wilson is the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior. 26 Wilson argues, the basic assumption of sociobiology is that our

brains have undergone the process of natural selection and therefore our minds are

adapted for survival. He further argues that all living things are created to simply

reproduce themselves, and that our bodies act only as a “vehicle” in this transmission

from one generation to the next. 27 For the majority of his ground-breaking work,

Sociobiology: A New Synthesis , he gives an overview of different species including ants

and honeybees and their organizational behaviors. He discusses population types, sexual

behavior, territorial behavior and methods of communication among different species.

The studies and illustrations used demonstrate not only the complexity of life but also

how certain behaviors function to help species survive in their environments. For the

most part, the book is interesting and very well written. However, the book takes an

interesting and academically daring turn when Wilson introduces his final chapter: “Man:

from sociobiology to sociology.”28

The first behavior Wilson saw as evidence in support of the sociobiological

perspective is the common display of altruistic behavior. Altruism is a key concept

throughout Sociobiology and is used as supporting evidence by many scholars. For

Wilson, rather than focusing on simple everyday positive exchanges, he researched this

behavior on a large scale. Altruism is at the root of our trade systems, bartering and our

monetary system. The exchange of money for goods and services, Wilson explains is

26 Edward Wilson, Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. 25 th Anniversary Edition. New York: Belknap Press, p. 4. 27 Ibid p. 3.

28 Ibid p. 547.

simply the “quantification of reciprocal altruism.”29 These exchanges not only help many societies operate efficiently, but on a basic level - allow for our survival. Even though we see this behavior in all societies, we cannot survive on altruism alone. Wilson argues that our decision making processes all follow the route of maximum gain. These ideas, which later developed into Game theory, came from the work of sociologist and dramaturgical theorist, Erving Goffman. Wilson references his work and further explains this particular social adaptation:

As Erving Goffman correctly perceived, a stranger is rapidly but politely explored

to determine his socioeconomic status, intelligence and education, self-perception,

social attitudes, competence, trust-worthiness, and emotional stability. The

information, much of it subconsciously given and absorbed, has an eminently

practical value. The probe must be deep, for the individual tries to create the

impression that will gain him the maximum advantage30

There is no doubt that altruism is an important behavior to our survival as a species.

However, does this necessarily mean that there exists an altruistic gene?

Another key concept used in Sociobiology which is also a component of game

theory is the Hamilton rule. Understanding relationships in terms of selfishness or

selflessness is common to sociobiological thinkers. However some take it one step

further. Game theorists weigh different behaviors against one another to try to predict

what is likely to be the most likely outcome in a social situation. These predictions tend

to come from the result that would yield the greatest gain for an individual. The Hamilton

rule is an excellent example and goes as follows: (c/b < R) “where c and b are additive

29 Ibid p. 553. 30 Ibid

decrement and increment to fitness of altruist and recipient, respectively and R is the measure of genetic relatedness between the two individuals.”31 In other words, the closer two people are related genetically, the more significant and frequent the expected altruistic behavior. Dependence upon the nuclear family and, in a more general sense, the reliance on kin are common behaviors that Wilson has argued are an adaptation for our survival. 32 In fact, he asserts that individualistic behavior would not enable any society to be most adequately equipped for survival:

The superman, like the super-ant or super-wolf, can never be an individual, it is

the society, whose members diversify and cooperate to create a composite well

beyond the capacity of any conceivable organism. 33

There is no doubt we depend on one another for survival, but can we truly say this behavior is the result of genetics? Without this particular gene or module, would we simply reject others and strive to fend for ourselves?

Finally, one last key concept in Sociobiology is the concept of our bodies simply being vehicles for our genes. The idea of selfish genes may not necessarily be that far fetched and we will explore it in the next section on evolutionary psychology. Wilson speaks to genetic variation as being the root cause for variation between different cultures. Like Spencer and the social Darwinists, Wilson feels that there is a direct root to cultural practices from our genes. This logic also follows the same path as Lamarck in having a direct purpose for carrying one social trait to the next generation. Wilson sums up his argument in the following:

31 Richard Michod. Coefficients of Relateness in Sociobiology. Nature Vol 288, 1-25. p. 694 32 Edward Wilson, Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. 25 th Anniversary Edition. New York: Belknap Press, pp. 553-554 33 Ibid.

Although the genes have given away most of their sovereignty, they maintain a

certain amount of influence in at least the behavioral qualities that underlie

variations between cultures. 34

Could genetic differentiation explain the difference between music, art, religion and basic

values? The improbability of a genetic base to cultural variation and the other mentioned

arguments are found in several key criticisms. These criticisms can be applied to the

entire evolution of sociobiology as many of the arguments have similar inherent flaws.

There are several types of criticism for the sociobiological argument. Formulae

that determine our behaviors toward one another have several logical flaws built within

the system. Because explanations for the acquisition any social behavior are not testable

and cannot always be verified, the logic behind such arguments is not scientific. Instead,

this type of evidence is commonly referred to as “ post hoc ergo propter hoc ”. David

Hume, the 18 th century Scottish philosopher was the first to make the distinction between causation and correlation. In his Treatise on Human nature , Hume proposes the following logical requirements for two events to be causal:

X causes y if, and only if,

H(1) x and u occurred in some same close neighbourhood

H(2) y succeeded x

H(3) occurrences of the x-kind in given close neighbourhoods are succeeded by

occurrences of the y-kind in those same neighbourhoods. 35

When two events occur one after another, this does not necessarily mean that the two are

related. The sociobiological argument assumes not only a single event but an entire chain

34 Ibid p. 550. 35 John Woods, Douglas Walton. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. The Review of Metaphysics. 30.4 pp. 569- 593.

of causation; one event directly causing the next, then the next, resulting in specific social behavior. The idea of such a closed system is not unlike the notion of fate in which events are preset to occur in a particular pattern despite any environmental influences. This is not to say that the logic of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology can be compared to religious or biological predestination. However, this example should give a clear illustration of post-hoc argument. The second part of understanding causation is that experiments require a closed system. “ Ceteris Paribus ” is a common phrase in economics

that translates to “holding all other things equal”. When performing any scientific

experiment, isolation of variables is an essential part of the research process. In

understanding the direct cause for human behavior which may be produced from a

science experiment that involves a next to infinite number of variables, the experiment

ultimately becomes impossible.

According to Richard Lewontin 36 :

If you want to understand an organism you have to know not only about it’s

genes, not only about the environment but you must have adequate models of the

randomness of development both mental and physical in order to have a complete

explication of the organism

Examining altruistic or selfish behavior and assessing loss vs. gain scenarios within

society sounds like a decent approach, but it does have one inherent flaw. The problem is

that the experiment contains too many variables to make a prediction. How much of this

behavior is learned vs. inherited?

36 Richard Lewontin. "UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures" 2004. [Show ID: 8393].

Amy Hasinhoff 37 also does an excellent job in summing up the flaws in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. In her work, It’s Sociobiology Hon! she states the following:

Sociobiology even breaks the standard rules of science since its studies are

tautological “just-so stories” with hypotheses that are not verifiable or falsifiable:

even the most sophisticated scholarship is never able to offer more than

speculation that a trait’s prevalence in a population is due largely to genetics and

not to any other shared factor such as culture or environment 38

Logic by itself should be enough to invalidate many of the arguments for evolutionary psychology. Genes need to replicate, but bodies are not simply a vehicle. The complexities that compose our environment, us included, are currently beyond our grasp to allow any direct, accurate prediction. However, let us look at some of the potential implications if we link these specific behaviors to our genes.

The problems with assuming a direct genetic cause of social behaviors runs far beyond a few troublesome published papers. The model created through Wilson’s research is not only making its way into popular culture, but is also carrying with it a string of racist, sexist and heterosexist paradigms. Like early biological determinism there can be devastating consequences to assuming predetermined behaviors. Following from the works of Wilson, as well as Pinker, Tooby and Dawkins (who will be discussed later) are the biologists and news stories that make claim to amazing discoveries. The first article picked up by Reuters discusses a study in which scientists claim to have found a gene that is linked to alcoholism:

37 Amy Hasinoff. It’s Sociobiology, Hon! Genetic gender determinism in Cosmopolital Magazine. Feminist Media Studies. 21.3 pp. 359-374. 38 Ibid p. 271.

In a study of more than 47,000 people, an international team of scientists found

that people who have a rarer version of a gene called AUTS2 drink on average 5

percent less alcohol than people with the more common version. 39

However remote the possibility, it is still possible that genes may have a more direct link to behaviors like drinking. For now though, we are unable to eliminate enough variables to directly make the claim. Environmental factors play an enormous role in determining drug and alcohol use. But we also need to reflect on the negative consequences of explaining elevated levels of drinking through a biological frame of reference. Instead of taking responsibility and control of alcohol use, a biological explanation of this behavior assumes an individual’s powerlessness in the face of predetermined biological habitual instincts.

The same conclusions were likely drawn from an article in 2003 that similarly claimed that over-aggressive behavior was linked to a missing gene. The study picked up by BBC news states as follows:

People who are over-aggressive or excessively anxious may be missing a gene,

say scientists who conducted experiments on mice. The gene, called PET-1, was

removed from specially-bred mice by scientists at Case Western Reserve

University in the US. They found that the mice had heightened levels of both

anxiety and aggression - when the mice were given a "territory", their response

time to attack an intruder was significantly lower than a normal wild mouse, and

they tended to launch an attack more often. 40

39 Kate Kelland Scientists find Gene Linked to Alcohol Consumption . April 2011. 40 BBC News. Missing Gene Link to Aggression. January 26, 2003.

Aggression is a result of a complex cognitive process and is usually the result of interactions within the social world. The notion of predetermined levels of aggression derives from a similar social paradigm to the previous example on alcohol consumption.

If you were told that there were aggressive genes discovered in your body, that information might unfortunately cause you to be more aggressive than others. First of all, the placebo effect would take hold, turning you into a more aggressive person whether or not there was proof of such a genetic influence. Second, any aggressive behavior could then be blamed on the problematic genes, extinguishing any social responsibility for such actions.

Let us not confuse such a study with the rigorous peer reviewed dissemination of scientific knowledge. Even if a result is unfavorable it is our duty to publish the result.

However, studies that lack empirical evidence or proper research methods need to be scrutinized, even if there is a scientific community backing the result. If we reflect on the social implications of the stories above, alcoholism and aggression become untreatable diseases or genetic conditions. If these ‘conditions’ gain further social acceptance, people with these ‘genetic disorders’ may be seen as our modern day ‘savages’. Genetically inferior to the rest, these theories and assumptions have been the cause of genocide and other uprisings. Spencer’s social Darwinism would be reintroduced and evolutionary theory would be judged on acquired individual characteristics or genetic makeup rather than survival traits over millions of years.

As we move into the final phase of sociobiology, what is now termed as evolutionary psychology, arguments from Steven Pinker will echo the work of Wilson in form and evidence. The key arguments and criticisms are similar. Even though

evolutionary psychology is today more academically credible than sociobiology, both disciplines have inherent flaws.

Evolutionary Psychology

Evolutionary psychology, according to anthropologist John Tooby and his wife, psychologist Leda Cosmindes, is described in the following way:

Evolutionary psychology is an approach to the psychological sciences in which

principles and results drawn from evolutionary biology, cognitive science,

anthropology, and neuroscience are integrated with the rest of psychology in order

to map human nature. By human nature, evolutionary psychologists mean the

evolved, reliably developing, species-typical computational and neural

architecture of the human mind and brain. 41

So how is evolutionary psychology different from Wilson’s sociobiology?

For an evolutionary psychologist, the real scientific issues concern the design, nature, and

number of these evolved adaptive mechanisms, not "biology versus culture" or other

unnecessary oppositions. The focus lies in evolutionary adaptations of the nervous

41 Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer . Centre for Evolutionary Psychology. 1997 p. 1.

system, rather than focusing on social behaviors as a whole. 42 Another focus for

Evolutionary Psychology has been psychological adaptations (i.e., the functional organization of the brain), and a de-emphasis on adaptive behavior.”43 Using these

definitions, let’s have a look at several key concepts in the field.

A first key concept in evolutionary psychology is the Massive Modularity Thesis

(MMT) or what some term as the “Swiss Army Knife” model of the brain. The basic idea is to imagine the brain has having parts that are specialized to perform specific tasks.

Jason Edwards, Politics program director at the University of London describes the MMT in the following:

Most evolutionary psychologists reject the idea that there are generalized

psychological structures and argue instead for specific adapted cognitive modules.

The mind is best compared not to a general-purpose computer, programmed

externally by the environment, but to a Swiss-army knife – that is, a tool which is

made up of a number of other tools, each of which is designed to perform a

particular function. 44

The most dominant example of the MMT has been our development of language.

Evolutionary Psychologists believe that our brains are designed to develop language.

According to linguist Noam Chomsky:

The grammar of a language can be regarded as a particular set of values for these

parameters, while the overall system of rules, principles and parameters, is UG

42 Edward Hagen. Is Evolutionary Psychology just a Politically Correct version of Sociobiology? Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin. 43 Ibid. 44 Jason Edwards. Evolutionary Psychology and Politics. Economy and Society. 32.2 pp. 280-298

[universal grammar], which we may take to be one element of human biological

endowment, namely, the “language faculty. 45

Chomsky builds on a basic philosophy from John Stuart Mill British philosopher from

the 19 th century:

Principles and rules of grammar are the means by which the forms of language

are made to correspond with the universal forms of thought....The structures of

every sentence is a lesson in logic. 46

Steven Pinker, Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University is one of

the leading proponents of Evolutionary Psychology. Like Chomsky, he views language in

a similar light, but takes this idea of a language faculty further in the basic metaphors we

use to explain and interpret information. In The Stuff of Thought, Pinker discusses several

metaphors we use in our language including “containers” and “locations.”47 In terms of

the container metaphor, objects have different forms. As Pinker describes, “It’s all about

the state of the container: no fullness, no filling.”48 One example he gives is how we

“load a camera” in the same way we would load hay into a wagon. 49 The other common metaphor used in language is the idea of motion in terms of change or location. Pinker explains this metaphor in the following: “a state is conceived as a location in a space of possible states and change is equated with moving from one location to another in that state-space.”50 To explain further, he then uses the following example: “Pedro went from

first base to second base” or “Pedro went from sick to well.”51 The second sentence is

45 Noam Chomsky. Reflections of Language. 1975 New York: Pantheon Books. p. 7 46 Otto Jespersen The Philosophy of Grammer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 47 47 Steven Pinker. The Stuff of Thought. 2007 New York: Viking USA. pp. 44-45 48 Ibid p. 50 49 Ibid 50 Ibid p. 47 51 Ibid

used very commonly, even though the verb “went” is not actually pointing to a physical location. Because these patterns exist among different languages, Pinker believes that it is likely that they follow a basic biological pattern that stems from a cognitive adaptation.

A second key concept in Evolutionary Psychology is the idea of the selfish gene.

The concept is also the title of book on evolutionary biology by Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has been on the forefront of the sociobiology perspective and has written extensively on the power of genetics. Dawkins explains that “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” 52 He also argues throughout the book that this fact does not necessarily make us “selfish” but rather, the genes themselves are designed to copy themselves. 53 Therefore, our behaviors may be

some reflection of these genes needing to survive. Dawkins also argues that contrary to

his above remark, labeling us “survival machines” from a genetic perspective, we are also

able to imagine and plan our futures. 54 We are able to change our behaviors if they are unfavorable, or if they require a different path to realize our personal goal. One example of where this theory was used has been mate selection and the construction of our gender identities.

There is no doubt that significant parts of our brains and bodies are dedicated to ensuring sexual reproduction and the continuation of our genes and species. However, evolutionary psychologists take this idea a step further and argue for the dominance of males and the biologically determined passivity of females. These two gender types, according to evolutionary psychology, have developed through our gene’s need for

52 Richard Dawkins. The Selfish Gene . 2005, London: Oxford University Press, p. xxi. 53 Ibid p. 200. 54 Ibid

survival. Michael Ruse, philosopher of biology from Florida State University, argues that from the sociobiological/evolutionary psychological perspective, females have little or no choice over reproduction.55 From Trivers and Dawkins we also learn that women are at a disadvantage for being left with the responsibilities for childbirth and child-rearing, while men are the naturally polygamous sexual aggressors.56 These ideas are not unique to

evolutionary psychology. However, through the selfish gene they are given new levels of

credibility.

Several studies have suggested that even a male’s preference for mating leans

particularly towards females who would have the best chance of reproducing offspring to

carry forward genetic material. Two examples are the age of females at which men find

them most attractive, and the fixations on female breasts. The former, Helen Fisher,

anthropologist and author of The First Sex argues that the male’s attraction to younger women comes from an evolved need for fertility. Attraction to widened hips would also be a common attribute associated with increased fertility. A younger aged female, David

Buss argues, is preferable to most males “because they have inherited from their male ancestors a preference that focused intently upon this cue to a woman’s reproductive value.” 57 Some writers even go as far to say that blonde hair is preferable because the colour represents youth and health to again ensure fertility (Hassinhof, 2009, p. 275).

Because these features are preferred in many cultures, most sociobiologists then assume that there is a biological function behind these statistics.

A final key concept in evolutionary psychology is the notion of memes. A meme refers to ideas of beliefs that are transmitted from one person or group of people to

55 Michael Ruse. Sociobiology, Sense or Nonsense . 1984 New York: Springer p. 155 56 Ibid p. 96 57 David Buss. (1994, p. 52).

another. They are “hypothetical cultural units passed on by imitation; although non- biological, they undergo Darwinian selection like genes.”58 First introduced in The Selfish

Gene by Richard Dawkins, the idea has spread throughout Evolutionary Psychology.

Examples of memes include: “a word, a sentence, a thought, a belief, a melody, a scientific theory, an equation, a philosophical puzzle, a religious ritual, a political ideology, an agricultural practice, a fashion, a dance, a poem, a recipe for a meal, table manners, court etiquette or plans for cars, computers and cellphones.”59 Our entire social

lives, according to evolutionary psychology may be constructed from memes that help us

survive. In fact, many evolutionary psychologists take memes a step further and argue

that the innate purpose of memes provides evidence for the belief in god.

The creation of gods, some evolutionary psychologists argue, resulted from

adaptations to our environment through natural selection. However, if we follow from the

era of sociobiology to newer psychology, the link has become less direct but nonetheless

still exists. During a meeting hosted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in

Madison, Wisconsin, October 29, 2004, Steven Pinker stated the following:

There is an alternative explanation, namely that religious psychology is a by-

product of many parts of the mind that evolved for other purposes. Among those

purposes one has to distinguish the benefits to the producer and the benefits to the

consumer. Religion has obvious practical effects for producers. When it comes to

the consumers, there are possible emotional adaptations in our desire. 60

58 Scott Atran. The Trouble with Memes: Inference versus Imitation in Cultural Creation . Human Nature 12.4, 2001, pp 351-381. 59 Ibid. 60 Steven Pinker. The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion Lecture. Harvard University. Presented at the annual meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Madison Wisconsin.

We require explanations for the inexplicable. At times these explanations are inconsistent, illogical and often contradict other basic understandings, but nonetheless they appear necessary. Religions also comfort those individuals who seek answers to questions of life, death and the universe. This comfort can even be measured in terms of serotonin production in our body. According to Michael Hammond, professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona, “religion seems to piggyback upon processes established before the origin of our species and [has] expanded in our evolutionary formation.” 61 The same hormones that are shown to be present in the development of

“partner loyalty and parenting behavior,” have been found to also be related to activities involving religious experience. 62

The criticisms of evolutionary psychology are similar to those advanced against sociobiology. Although EP attempts to present rational evidence for its claims, the discipline still lacks dedication to the scientific method. In terms of the MMT, specialized modules within the brain directly contradict much of how we currently understand our own development. In a critique of Pinker’s work on the brain, Jerry Fodor explains the following as a fault with the modular theory:

The moon looks bigger when it's on the horizon; but I know perfectly well it's not.

My visual perception module gets fooled, but I don't. The question is: who is this

I? And by what -presumably global - computational process does it use what I

know about the astronomical facts to correct the misleading appearances that my

visual perception module insists on computing? If, in short, there is a community

of computers living in my head, there had also better be somebody who is in

61 Michael Hammond. The Enhancement Imperative: The Evolutionary Neurophysiology of Durheimian Solidarity. Sociological Theory, 2003, 21.4 p. 360. 62 Ibid

charge; and, by God, it had better be me. The Old Rationalists, like Kant, thought

that the integration of information is a lot of what's required to turn it into

knowledge. If that's right, then a cognitive science that hasn't faced the integration

problem has barely got off the ground. Probably, modular computation doesn't

explain how minds are rational; it's just a sort of precursor. It's what you have to

work through to get a view of how horribly hard our rationality is to understand. 63

From Foder we understand MMT as an over-simplification of a complex process. Even

though we find similarities among different languages, this does not necessarily mean

that our brains are pre-wired for these structures. Instead, language may just be a

common outcome that results from a more complex process that may have under

different conditions product a much different result.

As for the selfish gene theory, the idea that genes function to replicate and create

copies of their selves is biological fact. However, the direct impact on social behavior is

not necessarily that simple. Of the many criticisms, one area leads in both the quantity of

information and some of the most devastating impacts through the spread of

misinformation. From EP, we learn that our selfish genes play part in our choices of

mates and even the frequency of our sexual encounters. However, our genes are not the

only factors that influence sexual behavior. The over sexualized society in which we live

has to affect our sexual choices as well. Therefore, we can not forget the power of

influence from our over-sexualized environment.

David Buss, evolutionary psychologist argues that the sexual differences between

men and women are well known and should be embraced rather than concealed for fear

63 Jerry Fodor. The Trouble with Psychological Darwinism. 1998, 20.2. pp. 11-13.

of offending people. 64 The truth is that some of the most innovative, valuable scientific discoveries have been extremely offensive to others, especially to the traditional or religious minded. Forbidden knowledge should never be an option, and scientific discoveries should never be held back for fear of offending. David Buss could not be more accurate when explaining this need for the dissemination of scientific truth regardless of consequence. However, if the results of evolutionary psychological research are unverifiable, then our concern is not with the implications of the results, but rather the results themselves. When journalists write exciting stories linked to evolutionary psychology, like those mentioned above, there is always a scientific ‘truth’ in terms of genetic links to behavior. The story never calls into question the validity of the results or even the field.

The problem here again lies with the logic, but also with the implications of this argument. Of course we find young women with pale skin, widened hips and large breasts hyper-sexualized in the media. These images create the cultural stereotype of young, thin, blonde women being thought of as the most attractive mates. The hegemonic ideal has become this image of youth and fertility that women strive for by any means possible. This desperation often results in surgery or other drastic actions such as improper diet and drug use. So where do these images come from, if not from the biological need for fertility?

Donna Haraway, professor in the history of consciousness department at the

University of California Santa Cruz, demonstrates another problem and implication of

64 Michael Britt. The Psych Files. Episode 111: Evolutionary Psychology – David Buss Responds to Critics . Retrieved July 20 from www.psychfiles.com

(biologically) deterministic theories of behavior. She argues that “what it means to be human cannot escape the logic of the story of man.”65 In other words, male dominance has played such a concrete role in our socialized history that the androcentric bias or lens is nearly impossible to overcome. Therefore, not only could this androcentric lens affect the results, the dissemination of knowledge, but it also reinforces traditional gender and political roles in society. Haraway views the ascription of sex and gender roles (and statuses) as more determined by a political struggle for authority in society, and the record of history supports this view. 66 Sex and gender differences will continue to be a

leading source of debate. However, we cannot afford to lose sight of the enormous impact

that culture and environment have had on the creation and reinforcement of gender

differences and inequalities.

A final criticism of EP addresses the concept of a meme. Culture that has been

taught and learned based on our need for survival may be present, but is not necessarily a

complete explanation of tradition. Tradition and cultural values that have involved the

slaughter of innocent people could not be argued as having a direct evolutionary purpose.

These ideas derive from the Lamarckian view of evolution; design for purpose. Returning

to the example on ‘innate’ religion, the brain may have developed the capacity for

consciousness, reason, and communication. However, religious rituals, creation myths

and other deeply rooted culturally inherited belief systems can not be a direct product of

genes.

The idea that religion may arise for comfort, selfishness or as part of some

regulatory system may be a plausible argument in sociology, but there is no evidence for

65 Donna Haraway Primatology is Politics by Other Means . Proceedings of the Beinnial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1984, 2, p. 489. 66 Ibid.

a genetic basis to religious beliefs. Hormones and other neuro-chemicals that are present during a religious experience may appear to be unique. However, these chemicals are usually present during any positively stimulating behavior. A person who is deeply devoted to a religion, imagining images of a beautiful afterlife will no doubt have raised levels of dopamine or other pleasure related neurotransmitters. The apparent cultural universality that all cultures have religion also does not necessarily mean that there is a genetic base for such beliefs. The term “religion” as we understand it in Western culture denotes a system of beliefs and practices. However, in many cultures, religion is not separate from other elements of life. We separate religion from law, magic, history, science, and other aspects of life whereas many other cultures do not. Therefore, religion is not simply something we all have in common. Steven Rose gives an excellent explanation of the problem with Pinker’s argument on religion. Rose states the following:

Steve's mind is a machine, a sort of abstraction that computer engineers program when exploring artificial intelligence.” 67 He further explains

His mind, like a computer, deals with information. By contrast-and this is what I

want to emphasize-real brains transform dead information into living meaning-the

making sense of the world around us. It's a meaning which is given to sensory

inputs by the working of the brain. It's based on experience, and it's provided

through its evolutionary and developmental history.68

Our brains are not programmed for these specific behaviors but rather combine our

biological capacity with our cultural history to produce these complex ideas and

behaviors.

67 Steven Rose. The Two Steves : Pinker vs. Rose, A Debate. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from unt.edu. 68 Ibid.

Middle World – Connected World

While exploring alternative theories of the human condition and the root of our behaviors, it is imperative to remember that we are physical as well as intellectual beings.

Unlike Plato’s soul, there is no separation between these two levels of existence. In a debate with Steven Pinker, Stephen Rose argues how we are in fact connected with our environment:

Organisms actively select and transform their environments, just as environments

select and transform organisms. I don't just mean humans, I mean any living

system. Even a single-celled organism chooses, changes, transforms its

environment in particular ways. Evolutionary change occurs as a result of the

continued interception of lifeline trajectories with changing environments. Such

change occurs at multiple-levels, from the molecular to the species. That is, the

individual gene, selfish or not, is not the only site of evolutionary change. Natural

selection is the prime, but not the only mechanism of this change. There are

constraints on selective processes. Not all change is adaptive, as Steve has agreed.

Some may be contingent, accidental, accidents of history and essentially neutral

in its effect. And because of the extent to which organisms select and modify

environments, they're not simply the passive victims of selective processes, but

play an active part in their-in our-own destiny.69

We have evolved from single cell organisms through natural selection and so have our brains. So why can’t we assume that our social behavior has evolved as well? The answer comes in the form of a philosophical idea from Richard Dawkins if we apply it to sociology and the understanding of human behavior.

In a lecture entitled The Universe is Queerer than we can Suppose , Richard

Dawkins explains how the universe is beyond our grasp of understanding. He describes our habitat as a place called “middle world” where there are limitations on our experience. Here is an excerpt from the lecture:

We never evolved to navigate in the world of atoms. If we had, our brains

probably would perceive rocks as empty space. Rocks feel hard and impenetrable

to our hands precisely because objects like rocks and hands cannot penetrate each

other. It is therefore, useful for our brains to construct notions like solidity and

impenetrability because such notions help us to navigate our bodies through the

middle sized world in which we have to navigate. 70

If we apply this view to human behavior, we find a similar consequence. Evolutionary

Psychologists cannot grasp or account for the large social structures or the smallest

fragments of discourse. The stimuli we encounter from conception are on such a massive

69 Ibid. 70 Richard Dawkins. On Our Queer Universe . 2005. retrieved June 2011 from Ted.com

scale, we cannot calculate for all variables and therefore cannot predict accurately. So is there a way out of middle world; to be able to account for all of these variables?

There are three possible ways around the problem of middle world, but none is without flaws. If only we could have complete control of the environment, then maybe we could answer beyond any doubt which behaviors are innate. From Rose, this statement alone is flawed because humans cannot be separated from their environment because they are one in the same. However, let us simply attempt to control variables in order to make some sort of prediction. The first obvious method would be what is known among the social scientific community as “the forbidden experiment.” 71

The forbidden experiment is the idea of taking a child at birth and isolating him or

her to the point where all environmental variables could be controlled. Morality is

without doubt the largest problem in conducting this type of experiment. No ethics

committee would ever allow such an experiment because it violates our basic human

rights. The most recent case of such an experiment occurred in the in the 13 th century by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II. He attempted to isolate children to find out what their natural language would be. There was speculation that they may have spoken

Hebrew, understood to be the first language spoken every spoken on earth. He supposedly directed the following:

Foster-mothers and nurses to suckle and bathe and wash the children, but in no

wise to prattle or speak with them; for he would have learnt whether they would

speak the Hebrew language (which had been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or

Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. But

71 Chloe Brushwood-Rose. Technobiographies as Stories of Learning. 2006 London: York University P. 89

he laboured in vain, for the children could not live without clappings of the hands,

and gestures, and gladness of countenance, and blandishments.72

Not only is this source hard to verify, and without any useful data, but the experiment

was also unsuccessful. So without the forbidden experiment, is there another way to

isolate a human being?

Fortunately, and unfortunately there have been cases of what are known as “feral”

children. These are kids that have been deprived of human contact and have been either

found or rescued. There have been several famous cases, but one example in particular

illustrates the problems when looking at this type of data. Around the turn of the 19 th century, a boy was discovered to be living in the woods around Saint-Sernin-sur-Rance, in France. When the boy was captured around age 11 or 12, the case was documented by a young medical student named Jean Marc Gaspard Itard.73 The boy was unable to

communicate and had difficulty learning basic concepts. 74 His behaviors after first being

found resembled that of wild animal; “biting and scratching.” 75 Even though he

eventually learned small parts of speech, Itard gave up on the endeavor. 76

The problems with the recorded data on this feral child and with other similar

cases are the variables that have not been controlled. Victor’s inability to learn may have

also come from a genetic disorder such as autism. 77 The disorder could be a perfect explanation for his inability to learn. Autism may also explain the reason he ended up the

72 G. Coulton, Chronicle of Salimbene: On Frederick II, 13 th Century. London: David Nutt 1906, pp. 242- 243. 73 S. Curtiss, V. Fromkin, S. Krashen, D. Rigler, M. Rigler. The Linguistic Development of Genie. Language. 1974. 50.3, pp 528-554. 74 Nancy Yousef. Savage or Solitary?: The Wild Child and Rousseau’s Man of Nature . Journal of the History of Ideas, 2001, 62.2, p. 253 75 Ibid p. 248. 76 Ibid p. 253 77 Ibid p. 254

woods from the beginning, possibly being mistreated or abandoned. There has never been a feral child case in which any testing was performed on the child before the mistreatment. Also, the environment in which many of these children are raised is anything but controlled. Therefore, we cannot use the data from feral children to help us conclude anything regarding the cause of human behavior. However, there may still be a way to create a forbidden experiment without mistreating a human being.

Even though this endeavor of isolation is flawed from the beginning, let us assume the extreme. In fact, the extreme will likely occur in the next 10-15 years, and is very exciting for sociologists, biologists, and everyone who feels a deep need to understand the brain. In Switzerland at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

(EPFL ), scientists are working away at constructing the human brain out of IBM computers. Just to give an idea of the power required, “each simulated neuron requires the equivalent of a laptop computer. A model of the whole brain would have billions,” and which is why a supercomputer is being used. 78 The endeavor is called the Blue Brain

Project, and project leader Henry Markram estimates the project will take approximately

10 years. 79 The reason for such a construction is not only to find out how the brain

operates, but to be able to find cures for neurological diseases. 80 However, the brain

simulation will also be very useful in the field of sociology as well.

Imagine a situation where we can finally do extreme social research such as the

forbidden experiment. Through understanding how the brain operates we can take our

first glimpse into the true underlying causes of social behavior. Stimuli will now be able

78 EPFL. The Blue Brain Project. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from bluebrain.epfl.ch 79 Henry Markham. Henry Markham Builds a Brain in a Supercomputer. 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2011 from Ted.com. 80 EPFL. The Blue Brain Project. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from bluebrain.epfl.ch

to be simulated, results will be calculable. All of the uncontrolled variables in the past will now be completely controlled. In fact, earlier this year the research team at EPFL released a report stating that they acquired new evidence for innate knowledge. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the team determined the following:

Small clusters of pyramidal neurons in the neocortex interconnect according to a

set of immutable and relatively simple rules… These clusters contain an estimated

fifty neurons, on average. The scientists look at them as essential building blocks,

which contain in themselves a kind of fundamental, innate knowledge – for

example, representations of certain simple workings of the physical world.

Acquired knowledge, such as memory, would involve combining these

elementary building blocks at a higher level of the system. “This could explain

why we all share similar perceptions of physical reality, while our memories

reflect our individual experience”, explains Markram. 81

Could discoveries such as this one also mean the end of sociology? In 1977 Lee Ellis published in The American Sociologist a report claiming that sociology was likely to decline if it did not adopt a more sociobiological way of thinking. 82 He claimed the sociologists have “biophobia” and are afraid to look towards biological studies for information on social behavior. 83 If we fast forward to today, with the construction of the blue brain project, could sociology be reaching a point of decline in its method of analyzing social structure?

81 Ibid. 82 Lee Ellis. The Decline and fall of Sociology 1975-2000 . American Sociologist 12.56-66. pp. 22-41. 83 Ibid.

The answer again comes from the application of Dawkin’s Middle World to sociology. Even though the Blue Brain Project may point to similarities in how the brain creates connections between synapses, the amount of sensory input required to simulate the human experience is at the moment, impossible to simulate. In the future, even if we could one day quantify the experience from birth to death of all stimuli over a lifetime, the experiment would still be inconclusive. If we consider Steven Rose:

The brain is embedded in our bodies, our bodies in the world of social and

cultural. Project would not work because it would require thousands of years of

social structure. Minds, I want to argue, are like brains they construct themselves

during development. They’re open systems; they are enabled by our brains. We

are not our brains; we use our brains to think and to do things just in the same way

as we use our legs for walking. It’s not our legs that walk; it is we that walk with

our legs. It is not our brains that think, it is we that think with our brains. Minds

deal in meaning, not information. The meaning is created; I want to argue, by

living people in interaction with our own history and culture. 84

We are our environment, deeply connected to our living and non-living surroundings.

This connection is not just in dependency, but rather everything is made of the same

material. The same elements that are present in your body formed in exploding stars

millions of years ago. Even though we are conscious, intelligent living creatures, the best

way to describe our existence may be as just another piece of the universe. A piece that

has become self-aware, can manipulate the world around it, and may one day have a

complete understanding of the entire universe. In this connected world, how can we

isolate our biology from the rest of the equation? From the large social structures to the

84 Steven Rose. The Two Steves : Pinker vs. Rose, A Debate. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from unt.edu.

smallest piece of discourse, everything is essential to creating our next idea, our next decision, the next move we will make.

Conclusion

For now, we live in this intricately connected middle world. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology can be useful platforms to investigate the questions of social behavior. However, the methods used and conclusions offered by these disciplines still leave many questions unanswered. Because scientists are unable to properly isolate all of the environmental variables that influence our behaviors, we are unable to answer the question of genetic predisposition. When these scientists insist on connections, regardless of evidence then the social implications and possible consequences range from racism and sexism to the extremes such as genocide. If we just pay attention to the logical flaws within these disciplines we can prevent the spread of misinformation on the subject.

Sociology is not dead. In fact, through amazing new scientific discoveries, sociological research is more important and diverse then ever before. Simulations of behaviors and sensory input may become the norm after we finish construction of the human brain. We should not back away from interdisciplinary research. But instead we need to embrace

and collect all ideas, filtering out those that we are unable to verify through the scientific method.

Works Cited

Allen, C., & M. Bekoff (1997). Species of Mind, The philosophy and biology of cognitive ethology . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ardrey Robert. (1961). African Genesis. Macmillion Pub Co.

Aristotle (384-322 BCE). Posterior Analytics. Translated by G. R. G. Mure. Book 1,

Chapter 2.

Atran, Scott. (2001). The Trouble with Memes: Inference versus Imitation in Cultural

Creation. Human Nature . 12(4) pp. 351-381.

Bayliss, Leonard E. (1960). Principles of General Physiology . Longmans: California

BBC News. “Missing Gene Link to Aggression. January 26, 2003. Retrieved July 26,

2011 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2692299.stm

Britt, Michael A. The Psych Files. Episode 111: Evolutionary Psychology – David Buss

Responds to Critics. Retrieved July 20 from www.psychfiles.com

Brushwood-Rose, Chloe. (2006). Technobiographies as Stories of Learning . 2006

London: York University, p. 89.

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections of Language . New York: Pantheon Books,

Cosmides, Leda. Tooby, (1997). John. Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer. Centre for

Evolutionary Psychology.

Coulton, G. (1906). Chronicle of Salimbene: On Frederick II, 13 th Century. London:

David Nutt, pp. 242-43

Cronin, H. (1992). Review of Griffin. New York Times Book Review, pp. 1-14.

Curtiss, S., Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Rigler, D., Rigler, M. (1974). The Linguistic

Development of Genie. Language , 50(3), 528-554.

Darwin C. (1999). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals , 3rd edn.

(Introduction, afterword and commentaries by Paul Ekman. Essay on the

of the illustrations by Phillip Prodger.) London: Fontana.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: Dover Publications. 1859. Reprinted

June 2006.

Dawkins, Richard. (2005). On our Queer Universe.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.ht

Early Concepts of Evolution: John Baptist Lamarck. Retrieved August 2011 from

Berkeley.edu

Edwards, Jason. (2003). Evolutionary Psychology and Politics. Economy and Society .

32(2), pp. 280-298.

Ellis, Lee. (1977). “The Decline and fall of Sociology, 1975-2000.” American Sociologist

12 pp. 56-66.

EPFL. The Blue Brain Project. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

Fisher, Helen. (1999). The First Sex : The Natural Talents of Women and How They are

Changing the World. New York: Random House.

Fodor, Jerry. (1998). The Trouble with Psychological Darwinism. London Review of

Books. 20.2. pp. 11-13.

Genome.gov. National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved July 25, 2011

Grifiths, Paul E. (2005). History of Ethology comes of age . Chicago Press: Chicago,

2005.

Hasinoff, Amy. (2009). It’s Sociobiology, Hon!: Genetic gender determinism in

Cosmopolitian Magazine. Feminist Media Studies . Vol. 9 No. 3.

Hammond, Michael. (2003). The Enhancement Imperative: The Evolutionary

Neurophysiology of Durkheimian Solidarity. Sociological Theory , 21(4), pp. 359-

374.

Haraway, Donna. (1984). Primatology is Politics by Other Means. PSA: Proceedings of

the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association . 2, pp. 489-524.

University of Chicago Press.

Hinde, A. R. (1961). The establishment of the parent-offspring relation in birds, with

some mammalian analogies. - In: THORPE, W. H. & ZANGWILL, 0. L. (Eds.),

Current problems in animal behaviour. Cambridge, University Press, pp. 175-193.

TED. Henry Markham Builds a Brain in a Supercomputer. 2009. Retrieved August 1,

2011 from

http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_supercomputing_the_brain_s_sec

rets.html

Hagen, Edward. Is Evolutionary Psychology just a Politically Correct version of

Sociobiology? Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin. Retrieved July, 2011 from

anth.ucsb.edu.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. First published 1739-1740. Reprinted 2010.

Gutenberg.org

Jespersen, Otto. (1992). The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Kelland, Kate. Scientists find Gene Linked to Alcohol Consumption. April 5, 2011.

Reuters. http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia56113820110

404

Michod, Richard. (1980). Coefficients of Relateness in Sociobiology. Nature 288(18/25)

Lewontin, Richard. (2004). UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures . Science, Show ID:

8393. California: Berkeley.

Locke, John. (1841). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding . Oxford: London,

1841.

Lorenz, Konrad. (1963). On Agression . London: Routledge.

Lovtrup, S. (1987) Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth . Croom Helm, London.

Lupski, James R. (2007). Structural Variation in the Human Genome: Clinical

Implications of Basic Research. The New England Journal of Medicine. 356.11.

Michod, Richard. (1980). Coefficients of Relateness in Sociobiology. Nature Vol 288.

18/25.

Pinker, Steven. (2003). The Blank Slate. New York: Penguin.

Pinker, Steven. (2004). The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion Lecture. Harvard

University. Presented at the annual meeting of the Freedom from Religion

Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, on receipt of “The Emperor’s New Clothes

Award.”

Pinker, Steven. (2007). The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human

Nature. New York: Viking USA.

Plato. Republic. (360 BCE), reprinted 1997. Wordsworth Editions.

Rose, Steven. (1998). “The Two Steves” Pinker vs. Rose: A debate. . Retrieved June 15,

2011 from http://www.unt.edu/rss/class/mike/5640/pinkerrosedebate.pdf

Ruse, Michael. (1984). Sociobiology, Sense or Nonsense. New York: Springer.

Spencer, Herbert. (1855). Principles of Psychology . London: Longman, Brown, Green

and Longman’s.

Spencer, Herbert. (1864). Principles of Biology Volume 1. New York: D Appleton and

Company.

Stafleu, Frans. (1998). Lamarck: The Birth of Biology. IAPT 20(2), 397-442.

From London Review of Books Vol 20, No 2 | cover date 15 January 1998

Yousef, Nancy. (2001). Savage or Solitary?: The Wild Child and Rousseau’s Man of

Nature. Journal of the History of Ideas , 62(2), 245-263.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. 25 th Anniversary Edition. New

York: Belknap Press.

Woods, John. Walton, Douglas. (1977) Port Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. The Review of

Metaphysics . 30.4.