Re: thought-experiment

Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:39:39 GMT

In article <51fo3i$26e6@argo.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:

>[snip]

>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.

How can there be an evolved generalized psychological adaptation for every
ecological and historical settings known for human culture?

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

>Heavens, no. :)

Tongue in cheek, eh?

>>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?

Because cultural "practices" didn't evolve at all in the strict functional
adaptationist point of view.

Cheers,

--Lenny__

"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle