Re: thought-experiment

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Susan: "Re: Homosexuality: male & female"
• Previous message: David L Evens: "Re: Creationists win the schools in New Mexico"
• Maybe in reply to: Elazar Harel: "thought-experiment"
• Next in thread: Len Piotrowski: "Re: thought-experiment"

In article <m-pg0123.842738796@mrslate>,
Paul Gallagher <m-pg0123@mrslate.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

>On one hand, you have the idea that culture is functional; on the other, that
>human culture arises from the genes, and that the variation among human cultures
>arises from variation in the genes. [snip]

The favored sociobiological/evolutionary psychological perspective, I think,
currently is that species-typical evolved psychological adaptations
generate a diversity of cultural elements in different ecological and
historical settings. You describe a behavioral genetics view above.

>I don't want to imply that culture is functional.

Heavens, no. :)

>I am suggesting that a
>culture that is autonomous from the genes would better serve the reproduction
>of the genes than a culture that is determined by the genes.

Superorganic theory? Why would practices be adopted which do not reflect
evolved individual strivings?

>Paul

Bryant

• Next message: Susan: "Re: Homosexuality: male & female"
• Previous message: David L Evens: "Re: Creationists win the schools in New Mexico"
• Maybe in reply to: Elazar Harel: "thought-experiment"
• Next in thread: Len Piotrowski: "Re: thought-experiment"