> From: "Maguire, Nick" <NICK92@psy.soton.ac.uk>
> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:32:51 GMT
>
> I think that Beth was right when she asked if maladaptive learning
> could override evolutionary cues. Perhaps this is extended to any
> learning. Given this, we are socialised against sociobiological urges
> (such as rape) pretty effectively.
MOST of us are, most of the time. But what's at issue is the causal
status of those evolutionary cues when it comes to antisocial behaviour
such as rape, murder, theft, and other crimes.
> As far as I know rape is a power thing, not a sex thing.
This is controversial, and although I know that is SAID often enough, I'm
not so sure about the strength of the evidence. Perhaps sex itself is a
"power" thing to a degree...
> So the proximal cause is nothing to do with satisfying a sexual urge,
> rather it is to redress a perceived lack of self efficacy.
Maybe; or maybe the truth is even more unappetising than that...
> This is obviously a social explanation; what I am trying to do is
> establish a relationship between social and sociobiological levels of
> explanation. Perhaps social explanations are only concerned with the
> proximal - but these are surely the most important if learning can and
> does 'replace' evolution.
True. But what the sociobiologists argue is that you must take into
account the irrational factors, the unlearned ones, and the ones that
resist learning, or get misshapen by it; that in turn requires an
understanding of the distal causes in the EEA that shaped the proximal
picture.
> So, I would argue, men are not all potential rapists, given that they
> (most) are socialised not to, and even those who do, do not have
> reproduction in mind. The distal 'cause' of rape is insignificant.
No one would predict that a rapist or a nonrapist would have
reproduction as his main motive for sex. Yet the proximal motives were
shaped by the distal causes, so they can't be dismissed as insignificant
quite that readily.
You'll need to survey the sociobiological stance on a lot of things, not
just sexual coercion, and come up with an overall view about the
relative significance of biological and cognitive factors. Perhaps the
clue is in the biology of cognition itself, ITS EEA and distal
constraints.
Chrs, Stevan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:16 GMT