Sociobiology is “science”-y but is it Science?

Sociobiology is “science”-y but is it Science? Eh, depends if you buy into the principles that transfer concepts of evolutionary biology into social behavior.

Your lens colors your interpretation. Dawkins for example, as an evolutionary biologist by training and trade, sees EVERYTHING as evolutionary biology.

Such is the coloring of his lens that he views reality with.

==

I understand evolutionary biology. I understand sociology. I understand psychology. I know where they mix, and where they do not.

==

You find what you’re looking for. Analogizing is useful up to a point but there’s a point where analogies break. The alpha/beta distinction for human sociology is broken. Sorry. Believe if it suits you.

==

The premise didn’t exist until sociobiology was created by E. O. Wilson’s book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis”.

It did not exist before then.

===

He studied ant and compared humans to ants. A lot of what he says is good stuff. I agree with him on a number of matters. This one? I do not.

===

You’re putting the cart before the horse, Naveed. The cart doesn’t drive the horse. Wilson was the horse that drove the concept that you’re proposing and pushed the cart forward to you.

==

 

Concepts have histories. They don’t magically fall from the sky.

==

How can you say “It would’ve been designated as such” if he hadn’t come along?

I just did a search through Google Scholar. The first example I can find of the beginnings of this idea applied to civilized human society is 1974, around the time Wilson published his book.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=%22alpha+male%22+human+behavior&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10&as_ylo=1800&as_yhi=1974

The concept of linking human social behavior to evolutionary sexual survival may or may not have been _implied_ in previous studies, but it was not put out in the open like this beforehand that I can find.

Before this, when they studied primates, they studied primates. When they studied ants, they studied ants. Crossing evolutionary biology into sociology wasn’t done before this.

It’s a crossover from one field to another.

Is it a valid crossover? You may believe so but you wouldn’t if it wasn’t for this work done in the mid-1970s.

==

If it works for you, Naveed, you can believe it if you like. I won’t stop you. It strikes me as simplistic and archaic, leading to a phantom genetic root for everything that ignores complex systems not tied into genetics or when they do, it’s in a circular fashion, in the fashion of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that’s another issue for another topic.

If it’s the kool-aid you want to drink, Naveed, you can. I’ll let you.

==

Unwilling or incapable looks the same from an external point of view, just sayin’.

==

Explanation is more powerful than implication. Implication is weak. “Self-evident” is weak. If you can’t lay out what you have with regards to evidence, your case is shallow.

I gave you points. You repeated your assertions. Weak. Just sayin’. Not saying I’m Alpha and you’re Beta, but I’m not saying it’s not that way either, if you buy into the Alpha/Beta distinction, which apparently you do.

==

Sorry. I just saw vague “1000s of examples” without seeing 1000s of examples. I proved your idea has a root. It has a history. I pointed to WHO, I pointed to WHEN. I pointed to detractors of the idea.

A dictionary copy/paste. A thesaurus copy/paste. Obviously we’re _not_ thinking of dominance in the same way or _maybe_ I’d be agreeing with you.

==

What am I wrong about? The alpha/beta distinction is not universally accepted among Scientists as an explanation for human behavior.

If it were, maybe I could consider what you said, “fact”. But it’s not.

==

Does biological behavior transfer into social behavior?

Maybe.
Maybe not.

It’s weak. You can champion it. Many champion it. I don’t.

I’m not standing alone and to be honest, the Alpha/Beta thing has long ago been overwhelmed by pop psychology and has lost its scientific credibility.

==

I’m pointing out that the Alpha/Beta distinction within sociology is the realm of losers who want to fake their way into being winners.

Lose the distinction for yourself. Keep it where it belongs: In Evolutionary Biology.

It doesn’t belong as a badge on your chest. It screams loser. Sorry, but it does.

==

You can call me beta Naveed. It’s as meaningful scientifically as INFP is for me. I accept that INFP fits my personality, but I ALSO don’t mistake it for “Science”.

==

I’m not debunking survival of the fittest, blind boy. I’m debunking its use in a field where it doesn’t fit.

==

I can play the “mock your opponent for gain” game too. But it’s dull.

==

Meaningless distinction. Your concept is flawed, Naveed. You didn’t invent it. EO Wilson did in the 1970s. You’re just parroting a flawed concept that’s long ago been taken over by business book writers and HOW TO GET A GIRL M8 books looking to make a profit off of a flawed premise, suckering people into it left and right.

What kind of people? I’ll leave that up to you to decide.

==

“Yo yo, homies, Science got my back 100% yo.” I love Science and hate when it gets misused like this.

==

Yes. I’m 44 years old Naveed. Read more Science than you have. I know more than you do. You’ll get here someday. Your youth is not a positive point in your favor.

==

Also, I apologize for the ageist statement I just made except that in this case, youth is not generally a strong point to bring up during a debate about depth of knowledge because it takes time to read. It takes time to process. It takes time to digest.

Parroting favorite science heroes gets old after a while and you start looking into things yourself to get a broader understanding of the nature of things.

This can be done at a young age too, but only once you’ve taken your heroes and put them to the same test you would subject your detractors with.

==

I’m trying to help you, not debate you. You can win the argument if you like. I’ll give you a crown if it makes you happy.

Your potential is why I spend so much time with you in these forums.

==

You’re satisfied with debating people and winning points, stating premises, sticking to your guns no matter what. That’s fine but it’s a game. I play it sometimes too. But I don’t care about winning an argument. I care about making my “opponent” stronger in debate, with the ability to think more clearly about issues from broader perspectives.

Whether you asked for it or not, I set my eyes on you from the start. I do it with a lot of people. I don’t need your agreement with anything or permission. But I know you’re capable, just stuck behind a roadblock.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


2 + = eleven

Leave a Reply