Agile Gene, and curriculum ideas based on it’s content. Additions to the themes and examples from the
book have been added to expand understanding in some areas.
1st theme:
Genes are not static elements in the processes of life.
Examples showing that the genome is an an amazingly dynamic
structure, responding sensitively to the environmental circumstances, internal
and external, of the living forms of which it is a part.
The reason this is useful is that our minds want to confirm our
beliefs, so it ignores how much of an outlier a statement might be and just
uses it as though it was general.
The
main thing about Theme 1 is the general *stability* of species, in forms
and traits, and especially the general stability of the creation of an
individual from a fertilized egg. This dominates all of the other
"wiggle-rooms". The latter are important for the changes that do
occur, but the time scales are very different between stabilities and
"instabilities that count". AK
2nd theme:
The absurdity of the nature vs nurture debate
All life is a product of both nature and nurture. All life processes involve an interaction between
a genome and an environment. Everyone realizes and admits this; and yet, it is
typical that as soon as this realization is admitted, many thinkers promptly
develop arguments where one or the other of these two themes is given
prominence. Ridley clearly, and in detail, shows both the futility and
destructiveness of such approaches.
Theme 2. Marvin Minsky's
observation that "You can't teach calculus to a cat", meaning that
what we can learn is quite limited by our nature -- if a brain isn't able to
deal with something, it just can't deal with it.
What
makes things tricky, especially with humans, is that we have language, and
languages can make languages. So we can learn calculus because we can train our
normal linguistic apparatus to deal with the ideas of calculus even though we
don't have "a calculus gene" (however, we do have language learning
and operations genes). This means we can learn to think of many things that
would not remotely occur to a paleolithic human 150,000 years ago (and they
could too if they were put into an educational environment at birth). And there
are some things that we just can't learn to think about no matter what we try
to do with what we do have as raw mental materials (this is our version of the
"cat's calculus").
The
important questions relative to education and civilization have to do with what
Slovic and others have studied: to what extents can we stay with, or do
abandon, learned behaviors under conditions of stress? AK
3rd theme:
develops is a critique of the idea of linear chains of cause and effect.
In general, cause and effect is a circular and very complex process. This
applies even in sciences like physics and chemistry, but it is especially true
in biology. Yet, it is very common (especially in the Nature vs. Nurture
opposition) to assume that each effect has only one cause. Ridley lays such
approaches to rest as both inadequate and misleading.
I.
Examples of Genes are not
static elements in the processes of life.
(He demonstrates from a dozen different
points of view HOW causality flows both ways, from the genes to the environment
and back.)
a.
until very recently
it was thought that there was a one to one correlation between genes and their
proteins. It was also unknown what, if any, purpose breaking genes apart into
exons on the chromosome served. Now we have discovered that many - ninety five
on one mouse gene - different versions of one exon can exist on the chromosome,
allowing one gene to make many different versions of its protein. Different
versions mediated by... environment, of course.
b.
how nerve cells grow through the
brain, from a starting point (for instance, the olfactory bulb in a mouse) to
the place where those nerves interact with other nerves so that a smell is
meaningful (to the mouse). This is amazing stuff, showing that the propagating
nerve itself is exquisitely sensitive to its immediate environment as it grows,
first detecting which way to go, and then detecting the other nerves in the
brain (among trillions of others) that is its target. This whole process is
mediated by the genes in the nerve, that are turned on and off by cues from its
environment, and that cause it therefore to do different things.
c.
Genes are not unchanging little bits of
DNA: their expression varies throughout a person's life, often in response to
environmental stimuli. Babies are born with genes hard-wired for sight, but if
they are also born with cataracts, the genes turn themselves off and the child
will never acquire the ability to see properly.
d.
stuttering used to be ascribed solely
to environmental factors. Then stuttering was found to be clearly linked to the
Y chromosome, and evidence for genetic mis-wiring of areas in the brain that
manage language was uncovered. But environment still plays a role: not everyone
with the genetic disposition will grow up to be a stutterer.
e.
Ape studies/comparisons to humans—
to shed light on the behavior of ancient human ancestors, compare human tool
use, emotional feelings, sex for pleasure, waging war, language (What makes us
human?)
i. 1967
Naked Ape Desmond Morris
ii. Lois
Leakey
iii. Bonobos-
sex for pleasure, homosexual and with juvenilles to celebrate
iv. Jane
Goodall-- 55-year study of social and family
interactions of wild chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park,
Tanzania.
1.
challenged two long-standing beliefs of
the day: that only humans could construct and use tools, and that chimpanzees
were vegetarians.
a.
While observing one chimpanzee feeding
at a termite mound, she watched him repeatedly place stalks of grass into
termite holes, then remove them from the hole covered with clinging termites,
effectively “fishing” for termites.[18]
The chimps would also take twigs from trees and strip off the leaves to make
the twig more effective, a form of object modification which is the rudimentary
beginnings of toolmaking.[18]
Humans had long distinguished ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom as
"Man the Toolmaker". In response to Goodall's revolutionary findings,
Louis Leakey wrote, "We must now redefine man, redefine tool, or accept
chimpanzees as human!".
2.
observed behaviors such as hugs,
kisses, pats on the back, and even tickling, what we consider "human"
actions.
3.
also found an aggressive side of
chimpanzee nature at Gombe Stream. She discovered that chimps will
systematically hunt and eat smaller primates such as colobus
monkeys.
v. Are
humans the only beings with culture? ( culture is described as the ability to
transmit acquired habits from one generation to another by imitation.)
1.
Chimpanzees of the Tai Forest in West
Africa
f.
Argument: do only humans have
subjectivity, consciousness, agency?
i. Pro
argument recently brought up again by Kenan Malik
ii. Con-
read Goodalls descriptions
g.
Are humans the only animals to wage
war and kill?
h.
Are humans the only animals with
language?
i. Chomsky-nativist
theory
ii. Language
Instinct, 1994, Stephen Pinker, nativist
1.
Criticitzes notions of language: that
children must be taught to use it, that most people's grammar
is poor, that the quality of language is steadily declining, that language has
a heavy influence on a person's possible range of thoughts (the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis),
and that nonhuman animals have been taught language (see Great Ape language)
2.
sees language as an ability unique to
humans, produced by evolution
to solve the specific problem of communication among social hunter-gatherers.
He compares language to other species' specialized adaptations such as spiders'
web-weaving or beavers' dam-building behavior, calling all
three "instincts".
3.
Pinker sees language as an ability
unique to humans, produced by evolution
to solve the specific problem of communication among social hunter-gatherers.
He compares language to other species' specialized adaptations such as spiders'
web-weaving or beavers' dam-building behavior, calling all
three "instincts".
4.
‘When researchers focus on one
grammatical rule and count how often a child obeys it, ... the results are
astonishing: for any rule you choose, three-year-olds obey it most of the
time.’
5.
iii. The
Language Instinct Debate by Geoffrey Sampson--a devastating critique of Steven
Pinker’s Language Instinct, critique of nativism, debating the
hypothesis that there is such a thing as Universal Grammar, and that it’s
innate.
1.
Sampson’s thesis: Children are good at
learning languages, because people are good at learning anything that life throws at us — not because we
have fixed structures of knowledge built-in.
2.
Provides a view of how human languages
work without appealing to nativist assumptions.
brought a different perspective to the empiricist/
nativist debate. It shed reasonable doubt upon the idea that we are born with
innate semantic structure. Sampson does a good job of showing the empirical
evidence does not always indicate the universals the nativists claim are
substantial.
3.
he believes that the
mind is literally infinitely creative. This seems to contradict his statement
earlier in the book that he believes Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate to be of
great value despite the fact that this conclusion can only come from complete
denial of everything this book stands for. Sampson calls upon the ghost in the
machine, Descarte's dualism, as the source of human creativity. This view was
not integrated into the book but simply pops out at the end.
i.
Thinking-consciousness human only?
i. Pinker,
Stuff of Thought, words use reflects innate brain structure,
ii. see the human capacity to frame events
in alternate ways through the dual function of verbs like "load."
This verb draws attention to the hay and its movement in the first sentence,
but to the transformation (a kind of metaphorical "movement") of the
wagon in the second.
iii. 7 words you cant say on television
iv. universal patterns of human thought can
be adduced from common patterns observed in many natural languages. The bulk of
the book is about the patterns, and the connection back to conclusions about
the innateness of various ways of looking at the world sometimes takes the back
burner. But what is useful about the book is that he does it in a way that is
not as complex and convoluted as the previous sentence.
v. there
are clear syntactic distinctions between the usually unprintable words for sex
and their more presentable cousins, such as have sex, make love, sleep
together, copulate, etc. I had never before noticed that the taboo and vulgar
forms, which tend to specify physical motion, differ from the non-taboo terms
in that they usually occur in a subject-verb-direct object construction (e.g.,
Austin shagged Vanessa). The more respectable terms lack a direct object and do
not specify "a particular manner of motion or effect." Furthermore,
they are semantically symmetrical, so that if Austin had sex with Vanessa,
Vanessa also had sex with Austin. More fundamentally Pinker ties the cathartic
effect of some swearing with "the Rage circuit, which [is]... connected
with negative emotion." The Rage circuit, as part of the limbic system, is
found in other animals and is associated with "a reflex in which a
suddenly wounded or confined animal would erupt in a furious struggle to
startle, injure and escape from a predator, often accompanied by a
bloodcurdling yowl."
1.
helps make sense of
Tourette's syndrome and otherwise identifies swearing as "a coherent
neurobiological phenomenon." Other chapters are similarly rewarding.
Pinker's analysis of metaphors both expands on, and, to an extent, revises the
classic works in this field by George Lakoff, Mark Johnson and others.
vi. explanation
of how groups of people use talking and silence to affect the distribution of
power. Why do people ignore the elephant in the room? What happens to the
dynamics of a conversation and a relationship when 2 or more people bring into
the open what each suspects but does not know for sure, or does not know if
anyone else knows? What is gained by blunt openness, and what is irrevocably
lost? What options for saving face or resolution, are protected by the way we
structure a question or a conversation? What does polite speech mean about the
power relationships in a group? Is he who yells intimidating or desperate, and
how do you tell? Why do governments restrict freedom of speech and assembly?
What is the difference between 100 people who each understand the situation and
100 people who all know the truth together?
II.
Examples of All life is a
product of both nature and nurture.
Genes are designed to take their cues from nurture.
a.
Twins studies elucidate the
intricate interaction of both nature (ie an individual's genetic heritage) and
nurture (i.e. the way they are raised and educated, and the individual's life
experiences) in the creation of an adult.
b.
One interesting conclusion: one's
childhood companions have more influence on one than do one's parents. But, as
always, the processes are all very circular and complex. One's reactions to
one's companions have a very large genetic component. The genes that are
effective at any one time are greatly influenced by one's social circumstances.
A person's parents have a large influence on both that person's genetic
structure and on their companions. This is very complex stuff that is not well
understood when one takes intellectual shortcuts.
III.
Example critiquing the idea of linear chains of
cause and effect.
For Theme 3, much of our
"logical/rational" thinking (which is done with what we've got inside
our heads) requires identification of cases because so many of our judgments
are of the "eliminating the impossible, and assuming what is left" --
this only works if one is starting with a complete list. Getting all the cases
in math is sometimes possible (and often still very difficult -- so
"reasoning by contradiction is usually a bit worrisome), but there is no
possibility of *knowing* whether we have all the cases in the physical world --
this should be the underpining of thinking about what science is and what
scientific knowledge is actually all about. AK
Books as basis:
Agile Gene
Language Instinct
The Debate
The Web of Life, Fritjof Capra
The Selfish Gene
Living with our genes, Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland
Goodall, Jane. Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey. New York:
Warner Books, 1999.
Webster, Richard (2005). Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and
Psychoanalysis. Oxford: The Orwell Press. pp. 609–610. ISBN 0-9515922-5-4.
No comments:
Post a Comment