[Lagrange]

What do you think of the field? It's shaping up to be a hard-science foundation for social science.

[quetzalcoatl]

What do you think of the field? It's shaping up to be a hard-science foundation for social science.

It's central assumption, that human social behavior is genetically determined (or influenced), is not demonstrated. There is no theory or suggested mechanism to explain how complex behaviors can arise from gene expression.

[mikema63]

That is because of our poor understanding of how the brain works and how genes effect it.

However the hypothesis is highly compelling.

[quetzalcoatl]

That is because of our poor understanding of how the brain works and how genes effect it.

However the hypothesis is highly compelling.

I agree. At the same time, circumspection is required when drawing conclusions from sociobiology, and related fields of study such as ev psy.

[Figlio di Moros]

It's central assumption, that human social behavior is genetically determined (or influenced), is not demonstrated. There is no theory or suggested mechanism to explain how complex behaviors can arise from gene expression.

Would it not be better to say "weakly demonstrated"? After all, the Big Five, as well as IQ, are all heriditary to a good extent. Over a larger group, it might be fair to say that the general genetic predispositions of the group has some effect on social currents within the group.

For instance, I know at one point Rei had pointed to an allele linked to adventurism tied more present in Americans, which makes sense as the earliest settlers had to have quite a sense of adventure to migrate here, and perhaps even up to the early 20th century that may have held true. It would be interesting to see what effect that and relative traits would have in the development of America as a distinct nation.

[Ter]

For instance, I know at one point Rei had pointed to an allele linked to adventurism tied more present in Americans, which makes sense as the earliest settlers had to have quite a sense of adventure to migrate here, and perhaps even up to the early 20th century that may have held true. It would be interesting to see what effect that and relative traits would have in the development of America as a distinct nation.

That's a bridge too far.
Genes do not translate into complex human behaviour in that detail and certainly not a single gene.

I never saw sociobiology as a bridge to soft sciences, rather as a biological explanation for certain behaviours which often, at first, seem counter-Darwinian.

[mikema63]

Genes do not translate into complex human behaviour in that detail and certainly not a single gene.

The behavior is complex but the underlying level of caution vs. curiosity or some similar basic traits could easily be controlled by levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. Dopamine levels for instance.

[Ter]

The behavior is complex but the underlying level of caution vs. curiosity or some similar basic traits could easily be controlled by levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. Dopamine levels for instance.

Yes that is possible and it is a good example. It should be clear however that dopamine alone does not dictate the behaviour. There is memory feedback, learning behaviour and quite possibly other hormones that are involved.

[mikema63]

True, which is why every thing is a "tends to" and heritability of of behavior is generally 40-50%

[Figlio di Moros]

Yes that is possible and it is a good example. It should be clear however that dopamine alone does not dictate the behaviour. There is memory feedback, learning behaviour and quite possibly other hormones that are involved.

Yes, however the alleles presence would encourage riskier behaviors. It's not difficult to imagine that could affect a culture if they were generally more inclined to risky or adventerous behavior, and that we could incorporate certain behaviors or attitudes towards risk more easily, or, obversely, discourage risk-adverse behavior.

[killim]

This discussion is decades old. There is already enough scientific literature for the nature vs. nature discussion. Didn't we already discuss this in the endless IQ threads?

[Figlio di Moros]

If you assume the sum total of genetic influence exerts itself in IQ, then perhaps. For those of us who don't deny the genetic influence on a myriad of psychological issues, from the big five to mental illness, than the discussion can continue ad infinitum.

[killim]

The scientific community agreed that the heredity of the IQ, represented by Holzingers h² is around .8


I am open to revelations from your side if you can base them on empirical basis.

[Lagrange]

Guys, I don't think sociobiology has much to do with that IQ debate. It's more about the biological roots of culture and social norms.

[Figlio di Moros]

The scientific community agreed that the heredity of the IQ, represented by Holzingers h² is around .8. I am open to revelations from your side if you can base them on empirical basis.

What revelations would you need when we're already in agreement?

[quetzalcoatl]

So the area of agreement is that individual tendencies may be heritable, although the mechanism is not always clear. This is a very long step, however, from saying that complex human social interactions are heritable...and still further from saying social structures which persist over many generations are heritable.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't see the mechanism by which biology would transmit social structures across time.

[Ter]

This discussion is decades old. There is already enough scientific literature for the nature vs. nature discussion. Didn't we already discuss this in the endless IQ threads?

Killim, I did not participate or even read any of the IQ debates.
When I encounter one, I make a detour of ten miles.
This thread is about sociobiology.
It is going fine.
Until you came in, nobody even mentioned IQ.
I read only the original 1976 pioneering work "Sociobiology" of E.O.Wilson when I was a student of biology and have not kept up with subsequent literature on the subject. I did read a lot by E.O Wilson but that was all about ants. So I am not familiar with the later developments in sociobiology. I can only comment on what I learned about genetics and anthropology.

[Figlio di Moros]

So the area of agreement is that individual tendencies may be heritable, although the mechanism is not always clear. This is a very long step, however, from saying that complex human social interactions are heritable...and still further from saying social structures which persist over many generations are heritable.

That is a misrepresentation, quetzelcoatl. We are not claiming particular cultural norms are directly related to the genetic makeup of the composite society, but rather they are influenced by the genetic makeup. A nation that is keen to taking risks while introverted will produce a quite different society than a nation whose gene pool favors extroversion and risk-adverse behaviors, and the accepted social norms of such societies will differ as a result.

[quetzalcoatl]

That is a misrepresentation, quetzelcoatl. We are not claiming particular cultural norms are directly related to the genetic makeup of the composite society, but rather they are influenced by the genetic makeup. A nation that is keen to taking risks while introverted will produce a quite different society than a nation whose gene pool favors extroversion and risk-adverse behaviors, and the accepted social norms of such societies will differ as a result.

I have no problem with such statements, if they represent the current state of sociobiology. At this relatively modest level, tentative conclusions don't seem to be out of line. I have also heard it argued that social organization can itself become an exogenous factor influencing evolutionary pressures on individuals within a species. Put another way, social structure and individual biology can co-evolve in an interdependent way. How does this argument strike you? It seems plausible, even attractive, as an idea, but I'm not sure it could be confirmed by scientific means.

[Figlio di Moros]

I believe you're refering to gene-culture coevolution, which is perfectly reasonable. If your dietary customs center around milk and meat, like say the Masai, you'll be more likely to develop lactose persistance and perhaps be neutral to type I diabetes or celiacs, whereas a vegan society would be neutral towards lactose persistance but develop towards extracting the essential amino and fatty acids out of grains and legumes.

Now, say these two societies started from the same group but got shipwrecked on two seperate island that weren't easily in contact with eachother or the outside world. Say a thousand years later they built ships and began trading with eachother and were open to the other's dietary customs. The pastural group would persist in mainly eating meat and dairy, and the vegans would persist in eating plant matter because their genes would be accustomed to it, having evolved alongside those dietary customs. If you look at people today, in fact, you can see us shifting our diets around the various digestive quirks (lactose intolerance, celiacs, diverticulitis, food allergies, etc.).

Is this what you meant, quetz?