Evolution and Human Nature

Peter Tatchell (a well-known gay activist here in the UK) made a similar point even more pithily when he said: "heterosexuality isn't normal, it's just common".

'People with statistically "deviant" behavioral dispositions are by definition not "normal," but their behavior is not a scintilla less "natural" than that of the normals.'

This is a point I often make when discussing how the gene complexes for attractedness on the X cromosome are selected during fertilization.

The one point I'd make is about the choice of words. Mental illnesses are often taught as "Abnormal Phychology" thus associating abnormal or not-normal as indicating illness. I would prefer saying not "typical" or not "usual" to avoid this association.

Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are "normal" to those who find themselves in either condition.

Lynn, I'm glad you enjoyed the chuckle. As I learned my first day at the US Air Force Academy, "Never loose your sense of humor." That's saved my sanity many a time since.
B

In the tradition of the just so stories, the one quoted is but one more...

>>"You and I are both part of the club of humanity because we have a shared ancestor: the first human."

Now, how do we know that there was only one shared ancestor - couldn't there be quite a few? Now, if there exists the possibility that there are a few ancestors (not all occurring at the same time), then surely there is no shared club of humanity?

And words like nature, instinct, complex - the first thing that they signify to me at the very least is "ignorance" - either total or partial.

And lastly, if the study of nature is primarily descriptive, then the number of predictions that can be made about nature would be rather small (akin to prescriptive), wouldn't it?

What do you think?

Now, how do we know that there was only one shared ancestor - couldn't there be quite a few? Now, if there exists the possibility that there are a few ancestors (not all occurring at the same time), then surely there is no shared club of humanity?

It was almost certainly more than one shared ancestor. It takes more than one individual to split off, much more likely that it was a small group (small relative to the entire population) that all existed more or less simultaneously.

And words like nature, instinct, complex - the first thing that they signify to me at the very least is "ignorance" - either total or partial.

I can't imagine why. Those are all perfectly useful words when used correctly.

And lastly, if the study of nature is primarily descriptive, then the number of predictions that can be made about nature would be rather small (akin to prescriptive), wouldn't it?

It depends on the context. We can make a great many predictions about specific things in nature and we can do so pretty accurately. It depends on how well we understand the specific part of nature being looked at, of course. Some aspects of nature we understand very well. We can predict with almost total accuracy the positions of planets and stars far into the future, for example. We can predict the weather with pretty good accuracy on a local level. There are other things we don't understand nearly as well.

>>It was almost certainly more than one shared ancestor. It takes more than one individual to split off, much more likely that it was a small group (small relative to the entire population) that all existed more or less simultaneously.

What is one shared ancestor but one ancestor or one set of shared ancestors but one set of ancestors? I was asking whether there cannot be multiple sets of ancestors (starting with two different sets and so on) like two different trees have two different roots? Whether they existed simultaneously is irrelevant. I am merely supposing that there were 2 ancestors temporally separated - then there is no shared club of humanity as quoted in the passage.

>>>>And words like nature, instinct, complex - the first thing that they signify to me at the very least is "ignorance" - either total or partial.

>>I can't imagine why. Those are all perfectly useful words when used correctly.

Like?

>>It depends on the context. We can make a great many predictions about specific things in nature and we can do so pretty accurately. It depends on how well we understand the specific part of nature being looked at, of course. Some aspects of nature we understand very well. We can predict with almost total accuracy the positions of planets and stars far into the future, for example. We can predict the weather with pretty good accuracy on a local level. There are other things we don't understand nearly as well.

My contention is with the original assertion (Ed Brayton's) that the study of nature is primarily descriptive. Now, if you can make a great many predictions, it is no longer primarily descriptive (as saying that is the way it is) it is prescriptive (as saying that is the way it will behave). Now one can say that a prescription is nothing more than a higher level description - in which case the original distinction between presciption and description doesn't exist (as expressed in (... in response to assertions of evolutionary psychology or sociobiology that the study of nature is primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive). I assume that when you say, the study of nature, you mean all nature here.

Anyway, I would like to hear a better definition of words such as complex (too complicated to explain, too many interacting variable, dynamic problem, non linear problem) that don't expose say ignorance, unavailable methods of analysis etc. The same for instinct or nature for that matter.

What is one shared ancestor but one ancestor or one set of shared ancestors but one set of ancestors? I was asking whether there cannot be multiple sets of ancestors (starting with two different sets and so on) like two different trees have two different roots? Whether they existed simultaneously is irrelevant. I am merely supposing that there were 2 ancestors temporally separated - then there is no shared club of humanity as quoted in the passage.

You're gonna have to translate that into English. I have no idea what your point is.

You seem to be suggesting that the mere use of the words nature, instinct or complex is a sign of ignorance. That is simply absurd. When a psychologist talks about fight or flight instinct, are they being ignorant or are they discussing an important aspect of psychology? When physicists talk about complexity with regard to thermodynamics, are they being ignorant?

My contention is with the original assertion (Ed Brayton's) that the study of nature is primarily descriptive. Now, if you can make a great many predictions, it is no longer primarily descriptive (as saying that is the way it is) it is prescriptive (as saying that is the way it will behave). Now one can say that a prescription is nothing more than a higher level description - in which case the original distinction between presciption and description doesn't exist (as expressed in (... in response to assertions of evolutionary psychology or sociobiology that the study of nature is primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive). I assume that when you say, the study of nature, you mean all nature here.

No, you're misunderstanding what I meant by "prescriptive". When I say that the study of nature (by which I meant the study of animal behavior) is descriptive and not prescriptive, I meant that we can describe the behavior of other animals in various settings, but that does not prescribe what our behavior should be. There are simply too many contradictory examples to pick and choose from to make animal behavior prescriptive for human behavior.

I'll leave the ancestors to rest for the time being...

I am suggesting that the use of words such as nature, instinct, complex is a sign of ignorance - specifically, its a cover for ignorance (cop out words). Like you say, when someone says flight instinct are they talking about a confluence of certain hormones rushing from some organ or chemical imbalances or are they merely saying it is just that way - it is as is. Like I said, define complexity without invoking partial or total ignorance of the underlying laws (discovered or undiscovered) or relationships between variables, most of them dynamic, and then perhaps we can take up the case of the physicists talking about thermodynamics and complexity therein.

As for the section on animal behavior, you're just illustrating the varying degrees of ignorance (not personal ignorance btw) present in these kinds of discussions. Let's ask a more basic question - why (not is) is there a distinction between the prescriptive and descriptive?

The very idea "There are simply too many contradictory examples to pick and choose from to make animal behavior prescriptive for human behavior." should indicate that not enough is understood about animal behavior in order to make it prescriptive for human behavior not that there are many examples per se. What you're indicating is that there is an ignorance of the true motivations (or interactions) of animal behavior and hence the contradiction (apparent contradiction) between different examples.

I am suggesting that the use of words such as nature, instinct, complex is a sign of ignorance - specifically, its a cover for ignorance (cop out words). Like you say, when someone says flight instinct are they talking about a confluence of certain hormones rushing from some organ or chemical imbalances or are they merely saying it is just that way - it is as is. Like I said, define complexity without invoking partial or total ignorance of the underlying laws (discovered or undiscovered) or relationships between variables, most of them dynamic, and then perhaps we can take up the case of the physicists talking about thermodynamics and complexity therein.

I'm not sure I'm getting the point of this. Take an example. We know that Monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus, undergo a fascinating migration that sees individuals on the east coast of North America fly all the way down to the mountains of Mexico to overwinter in pine trees. Then, they migrate back in the spring, but not the same individuals. In fact, by the time next years crop of Monarchs arrive here, they will be 3 generations removed from those that flew south. So how does the crop that flies south know where and when to go? They couldn't possibly have been taught this, as the prior batch that flew south were dead before they were born. The only answer is that this behavior must be inborn, or instinctual. How exactly it gets programmed we don't yet know, but we do know its instinct. That's not a cop-out.

As for the section on animal behavior, you're just illustrating the varying degrees of ignorance (not personal ignorance btw) present in these kinds of discussions. Let's ask a more basic question - why (not is) is there a distinction between the prescriptive and descriptive?

Because they are distinct concepts? Presciptions say what ought to be, while descriptions say what is.

The very idea "There are simply too many contradictory examples to pick and choose from to make animal behavior prescriptive for human behavior." should indicate that not enough is understood about animal behavior in order to make it prescriptive for human behavior not that there are many examples per se. What you're indicating is that there is an ignorance of the true motivations (or interactions) of animal behavior and hence the contradiction (apparent contradiction) between different examples.

We know what motivates a male lion to kill all the cubs in the pride that were sired by his defeated rival ... this is how he eliminates eliminates his rival's genes and carries his own forward (the females then come back in heat and he mates with them). Knowing this doesn't exactly make it a good model for humans to emulate.

About the Monarch:
>>How exactly it gets programmed we don't yet know, but we do know its instinct. That's not a cop-out.

But that's exactly what I said - you've merely substituted the word instinct for a process you don't know anything about, for something that you're ignorant about. That is why I said that these kinds of words shield either total or partial ignorance of what is at work and as such only conveys ignorance. In this case, you have deduced that since the generations are thrice removed, there is no avenue for external instruction and so have alleviated some of the mystery but most of it remains. But calling this phenomenal mapping ability instinct doesn't less than a mystery make.

Prescriptions vs Descriptions:
Now, I have indicated that one can think of a prescription as nothing but a higher level description. Because in the final evaluation of things, one can only argue that this is the way the universe is. An example perhaps is that the force of gravity is attractive which is both descriptive and prescriptive but is only in
any sense a description of how things occur in the universe. In other words, no real distinction exists except that which occurs in the ignorance of a complete understanding of all the laws (generalized interactions) in the universe or a field of study.

The Lions:
Knowing this doesn't make it a good model for humans to emulate? And just why is this? Perhaps its not necessary because the ladies are always heating up :-) but surely to ensure the survival of one's own genes, this is a surer method than none. But suddenly I am beset with doubt as to why the explanation for the lion has
a more exciting response (reason) while for the monarch it is rather staid - after all they are both monarchs of some realm. Now, one is about siring his own and the other is about finding his way back to America. The Monarch butterfly, it seems, is instinctual in its flight back to America while the Lion is motivated (therefore the
implication, I hope, is that the instinct has been explained now). In the past, an observer of this predation might have said it was instinctual but now we know better. This, ofcourse proves my first point that the words such as instinct is a cover for ignorance (I hope you can agree). Humor me now, I somehow can't buy this explanation
because I don't think that the Lion knows anything about genes or has rather little interest in proteins of this scope. He may however not like the smell of the cubs that lingers in the air and by golly all the females are stuck up too - so he has merely found a way to get rid of two birds with one stone. But how did he come to learn this
thing at all? The lion certainly didn't watch it being done because he would not be around if it were being done to him as a cub. So again, instinct rears its head? I'm afraid, I really don't understand if anything has been explained?