Sociobiology debate

From: Richard Pocklington <pockling@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Sociobiology Debate
Date: 17 Mar 1995 02:54:49 GMT

j#d#.moore@canrem.com (J. Moore) wrote:
>
> Ge> >Is the act of asking the question (Is there a biological basis for
> Ge> >male dominance?) a validation of male dominance?

> It seems to be a holdover from pre-evolutionary thinking
> It's virtually a carbon copy of the
> religiously-based (largely fundamentalist Christian) idea that of sin
> and redemption: the idea that before your soul can be redeemed, you MUST
> accept that you are a sinner.

Alternative hypothesis:

In order to change your behaviour, you have to have a grasp on
why you are doing what you are doing.  Similarly, in order to 
fix your bicycle you should have an idea about how the darn thing
works BEFORE you start tinkering. Otherwise you are likely to
screw it up worse by your meddling.

If this hypothesis is true, then we should devide the xtian
sin doctrine into bits and pieces, and eliminate the bad ones while 
keeping those parts that are functional.

Unfortunately xtian sin concepts seem easily corrupted to 
function as tools working against the people they are supposed to help.

What might keep sociobiological analyses from such a fate.
Perhaps more sociobiology (and game theory).
What if the types of 'social tools' designed were thought out 
rigorously enough to help protect them from easily being corrupted.

From: dbennett@crl.com (Andrea Chen)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Sociobiology Debate
Date: 17 Mar 1995 19:50:11 -0800

Richard Pocklington <pockling@sfu.ca> writes:


>What might keep sociobiological analyses from such a fate.
>Perhaps more sociobiology (and game theory).
>What if the types of 'social tools' designed were thought out
>rigorously enough to help protect them from easily being corrupted.


The approach that the neu neutopian movement has taken is not to
seek out "safe tools",  but to make people aware of how various forms
of manipulation work.  We did a fairly complex exploration of "disinformation"
on alt.alien.visitors and are now engaged in a slightly different
set of experiments in alt.cyberspace   As a general rule we "push buttons"
in certain cross threaded groups and then provide a commentary (currently
absent) in ac.  

Several projects currently underway are the creation of a mock religious
form and "deconstruction" of post modernism through examination of
personality dynamics.  There are also plans to study how cyberpunks
react when they are treated as a "counter revolutionary" movement.
Participants and observers are welcome to tune into ac (alt.cyberspace)
Things are somewhat disordered,  but in this still preformal stage, improv
and bringing new ideas and techniques into the mix is very helpful.  
Observation (ours is very casual) is also helpful.

From: brock@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Sociobiology Debate
Date: 20 Mar 1995 20:01:43 GMT

>> Ge> >Is the act of asking the question (Is there a biological basis for
>> Ge> >male dominance?) a validation of male dominance?

The manner of asking the question presumes male dominance, but it doesn't
tell me what males are presumed to dominate.  Africans once dominated the
cotton picking trade, but I wouldn't have switched places with them.  If I
were a developing fetus, today, and I were given a choice of genders, I have
absolutely no doubt which gender I'd choose.  Say what you like about white,
male paranoia.  White females are the dominate class in this country, now.
They enjoy all the cultural benefits which their brothers enjoy (more, really)
and considerably greater legal protections.  The differences are particularly
acute on the lower end of the socio-economic scale.  Welfare moms may lead
unenviable lives, but not compared to their male counterparts.  Moms live in
the projects.  Dads live on the streets, in the homeless shelters, or in jail.

Only the pathologically feminist can fail to see the advantages of being a
women in the United States at the end of the twentieth century.

"Male dominance" is clearly a political tactic these days, a lot like
"liberal media," and it's backfiring.  A lot of men who supported the women's
movement in the past are growing tired of the drumbeat.  Many women escaped
their traditional roles only to discover that they were happier within them,
so that now the women's movement struggles to preserve for women a range of
options encompassing traditional and nontraditional roles.  Meanwhile, men
are beginning to realize that the women's movement is as sexist as its name
suggests.

From: scott9609@aol.com (Scott9609)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Sociobiology Debate
Date: 20 Mar 1995 18:40:09 -0500

The expression "male dominance" is, for our species, largely redundant I
believe.

One doesn't have to be a feminist to note the absurdity of an argument
that posits that women are dominating the culture.

If I was a developing fetus and had a choice, I'd still choose to be white
and male if I was going to born in North America.   The vast majority of
upper-level positions and opportunities in American society still go to
white males, as anyone who follows these things knows.

What in the world does this have to do with sociobiology, anyway? 

Curiously....Scott Hatfield (kennesaw@ccfnet.com)