From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 02:01:58 MDT
>>Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>>### I wonder if mentioning this book will earn you accusations of
>>>being a barbarian, racist, or maybe even a Nazi. After all, Pinker
>>>reiterates the notion universally accepted by psychologists, that
>>>the variation in intelligence is predominantly determined by genetics
>>
>>Not that I noticed. Are you sure you're not confusing Pinker's
>>evolutionary psychology with the quite separate discipline of
>>behavioral genetics?
>
> ### The cryptic way is carrying over from SL4 - but bear with me, your
> question needs to be couched in simpler and more explicit terms.
Eliezar then said <<
****
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html
In fact, evolutionary psychology and behavior genetics are animated by two
radically different questions:
1. What is the universal, evolved architecture that we all share by
virtue of being humans? (evolutionary psychology)
2. Given a large population of people in a specific environment, to
what extent can differences between these people be accounted for by
differences in their genes? (behavior genetics)
-- Tooby and Cosmides
**** >>>
Sounds like this is about as radical as the difference between pasta
and linguini. One subsumes the other. The root proposition
is that the SSSM is fatally irretrievably flawed. EP and BG are
still subject to the same notions of ideologically correct science
regardless of the level of analysis your appplication of biological models
to behavior focuses on. Come on in the fire Eli, it's nice and warm here
on the stake :)
regards,
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:02 MST