Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Happily no one has yet mentioned IQ per se, or genetics which I see raised its head in AS's post. I am guilty of referring to "stupidity" but by that I meant a compendious (and possibly circular) general inability to make the "right" decisions. It could as easily include someone who was clever but lazy (someone who, say, posts on an internet forum insterad of doing his work...) Certainly not a lack of ability to shuffle funny little triangles and squares around on a piece of paper....
But these two are highly correlated. You may think that IQ is something ivory tower scientists like to play with (and that is not entirely wrong) but its predictive power is unquestionable. High IQ people are more succesful, earn more money, have a higher social status, are less prone to deviant behaviour, are healthier, more attractive and live longer.
Aside from that, what you oversee is that Mrs Atkins and her kin make perfectly reasonable decision from a certain point of view. Those decisions are only not meant to make them - or you - happy. It is a basic strategy for gene transport vehicles such as Mrs Atkins to increase the number of offspring if the control on their environment is low. That way, chance increases that some of her gene-copies make it through. If you have higher control on environment, you can afford to invest all in few siblings.
You may not like sociobiological explanations, but rejecting them doesn't help if they are true.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Ah, sociobiology. I'm all in favour of it, for ants.
I don't actually object to sociobiology, at least when it is deployed by biologists rather than being some just so stories a half baked political philosopher jots down.
But, in one of my favourite concepts du jour, it falls into the trap of nothing buttery. Ie, it is one thing to say the human organism exists to transmit its genes to the next generation. It is another to say the human organism exists to do nothing but transmit its genes to the next generation.
In this case, if it is the case that poorer women have more children than richer women, I'd need to be persuaded that we had to look beyond the wider range of fulfilling choices available to richer women.
We'd also have to check we weren't confusing cause and effect, after all having children and stopping working or working part time will pretty quickly have an impact on your income. Hey presto, poor women have more children.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
High IQ people are more succesful, earn more money, have a higher social status, are less prone to deviant behaviour, are healthier, more attractive and live longer.
Which caused which?
Did having more money create a higher social status, better food, more free time, access to more learning material and hence a better exercised and feed brain.
etc
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
And this (link) is the disappointing message that it's £40m-a-year 'teenage pregnancy strategy' doesn't work.
In her first interview since her post-election return to the government, Beverley Hughes told the Guardian that ministers had "reached a sticking point" where their efforts could not by themselves solve the problem of teenage pregnancy.
Mrs Hughes has come to the staggering conclusion that a helping hand from parents might actually help the Government succeed where it fails in educating children about sexuality.
All the evidence showed that "we really need parents to now see themselves as making an absolutely unique and vital contribution to this issue ... It is a contribution that I don't think anyone else can actually make".
On the other hand Mrs Hughes, who is the mother of two adult daughters and a son, admits her generation may be out of touch with adolescent sexual attitudes and issues -- if not actually with their own sexuality, a subject mercifully left untouched in her press conference.
Ms Hughes acknowledged that initially she felt uncomfortable discussing sex and relationships with her children, partly because her daughters were so much more informed about sex than her own generation through information gathered from sources such as teen magazines.
During the press conference it transpired that the problem is really only concentrated in poor areas: in some inner city boroughs more than one in 10 teenage girls becomes pregnant. In the subsequent expert round-table discussion Dr English Assassin, of Assassin & Appleton Consultants, stated that poverty is really a fleeting phenomenon and not part of a complex of obnoxious problems compounded by other physical, social, psychological and educational handicaps. Prof A.Saturnus of the Genetics Department of McDonald's Hamburger University favoured a Kwik-Fit approach to gene transport vessels like Mrs Atkins of 'baby factory' fame. The session ended on a brief presentation by AdrianII of Ad & Frag Comic Relief Productions suggesting that the Dutch aggressive campaign for sex education in schools and other public institutions since the 1970's had nipped this problem in the bud in their country.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
We've solved 75% of the problem, then:
ship all unwed underage mothers & offspring to Holland! ~D
Now: about those pesky unwed fathers...
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
If it works for ants, why shouldn't it work for humans?
From an evolutionary point of view, the only purpose of an organism is to provide evolutionary success to its genes. Everything that doesn't serve this purpose is a waste. Denying that will lead at some point to the necessity to throw some unscientific hokuspokus into the ring. Of course, that doesn't mean everything humans do serves this purpose, the genes hold humans on long leashes.
The weakness of sociobiological explanations is that they are ad-hoc. But if we have an effect on population level that seems to be culture independent and in line with evolutionary logic, they have a good plausibility. Though, if you have a better explanation...
When we evaluate causation, we have to consider that children from poorer families will have more offspring later.
Quote:
Did having more money create a higher social status, better food, more free time, access to more learning material and hence a better exercised and feed brain.
That is indeed the question and there's a controversy about the answer. In my opinion, the fact that average IQ has increased in the last 50 years points to the assumption that it works as you said, at least partly.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
If it works for ants, why shouldn't it work for humans?
From an evolutionary point of view, the only purpose of an organism is to provide evolutionary success to its genes.
Well because we can think (memes) so maybe we are at a crossroads of having two sets of purposes.
One purpose for the genes to propagate.
The second purpose for the memes to propagate.
Of course the two can be in conflict, no intersection or symbiots.
The most successful would be when the memes and genes help each other. I think that humans so far have more or less proven that the two working together is quite powerful. If anything though it is the memes that contain the most power (E=mc^2).
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
From an evolutionary point of view, the only purpose of an organism is to provide evolutionary success to its genes. Everything that doesn't serve this purpose is a waste. Denying that will lead at some point to the necessity to throw some unscientific hokuspokus into the ring. Of course, that doesn't mean everything humans do serves this purpose, the genes hold humans on long leashes
In the light of the last sentence, with which I agree, do I need to answer this question:
Quote:
If it works for ants, why shouldn't it work for humans
Anyway, it may well work for humans, its not the belief but a simple minded application I object to. Not every feature of an animal exists for some evolutionary advantage. Some features may carry a significant disadvantage provided they have sufficiently large counterbalancing advantages. Presumably being slow is not per se an advantage for the tortoise, and the peacock could be forgiven for wishing peahens were easier to impress.
IMHO some of the popular language of sociobiology is redolent of lamarkism or even, god forbid, design, although obviously the likes of Wilson avoid that.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
I suspect part of the reason it looks like poorer girls get pregnant more is that richer girls just get abortions immediately.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The weakness of sociobiological explanations is that they are ad-hoc.
Quite. They often try to explain behaviour that has been labelled problematic for cultural reasons (criminal, homosexual, sexually precocious) without being properly defined. In other words: in another type of society from ours, sociobiology might well be labelled problematic and its proponents locked up for antisocial behaviour. Nonetheless, as you stated, there may be underlying cross-cultural behaviour patterns rooted in evolutionary psychology and labelled differently according to each specific culture. This suggests that for the purpose of such research one should define behaviour in ways that are as devoid of cultural prejudice as is possible.
Mrs Atkins family seems to be a case in point.
I've looked into some numbers and the real problem appears to be somewhat different from the official definition of the teenage pregnancy issue.
According to Table 3.1 of Health Statistics Quarterly (I can't copy the Excel spread here), teenage births have been falling since the mid-1960's In 1966 there were 86,700 births to women under 20; in 2003 there were 44,200. Of the 97,100 women under 20 who became pregnant in 2002, only 7,900 were under 16, and a large portion of these conceptions - 55.6 per cent - ended in abortion.
The real problem seems to pop up in Table 3.2 (Live Births outside Marriage) where the percentage of births outside wedlock under the age of 20 has shot up from 26.1% in 1971 to a haunting 90.2% in 2003. The precentage of births out of wedlock for all mothers' ages went from 8.4% in 1971 to 42.4% in 2003.
The real change seems to have been in the attitude toward marriage as well as notions about what stage in a woman's life is most suited to childbirth. Throughout history gazillions of mothers have given birth at 18, yet in today's (British) society the mean age is 28 and rising.
I take back my all too simplistic remark about Dutch sex education. If there is a difference between our countries, it would be in the wider educational context, where Dutch schools seem to be much more involved in the drive to make children (particularly girls) aware of their true lifestyle choices (as opposed to the commercially advertised ones) and the responsibilities that come with them.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
IMDHO
Strange thing about welfare though is that it may overall for society decrease the number of births.
If you don't need kids to look after you in old age because the government will look after you then the incentive to have ten kids diminishes.
A lot of countries without government welfare have to rely on family welfare and hence those families are far larger.
So although these girls are having children for possibly the welfare benefits the vast majority of members of society the welfare benefits of the system as a whole will slow down their rate of birth perhaps.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pape
Well because we can think (memes) so maybe we are at a crossroads of having two sets of purposes.
That's why I said long leash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Anyway, it may well work for humans, its not the belief but a simple minded application I object to. Not every feature of an animal exists for some evolutionary advantage. Some features may carry a significant disadvantage provided they have sufficiently large counterbalancing advantages. Presumably being slow is not per se an advantage for the tortoise, and the peacock could be forgiven for wishing peahens were easier to impress.
That are all good arguments that the sociobiological explanation might be wrong. They don't imply that it is wrong. It is scientifically reasonable to accept the most plausible explanations. Thus, provide an alternative that is more plausible or accept this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
This suggests that for the purpose of such research one should define behaviour in ways that are as devoid of cultural prejudice as is possible.
I think that is the case here. "Control over environment" and "teenage pragnancy" are both concepts that can be defined in a non-evaluative way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
I suspect part of the reason it looks like poorer girls get pregnant more is that richer girls just get abortions immediately.
I don't know the correct numbers but I assume that poorer girls have more abortions than rich ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pape
A lot of countries without government welfare have to rely on family welfare and hence those families are far larger.
So although these girls are having children for possibly the welfare benefits the vast majority of members of society the welfare benefits of the system as a whole will slow down their rate of birth perhaps.
That is a widespread view but I reject it. Common sense would tell us that many children that have nothing are not a better family welfare than a few children that have nothing. In fact, I would claim that high birth rate is a cause for welfare problems, not a remedy of it.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
I don't know the correct numbers but I assume that poorer girls have more abortions than rich ones.
Its the other way around.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3849119.stm
Quote:
That are all good arguments that the sociobiological explanation might be wrong. They don't imply that it is wrong. It is scientifically reasonable to accept the most plausible explanations. Thus, provide an alternative that is more plausible or accept this.
I think it is self evident that not every animal characteristic exists "because" that characteristic itself confers selective advantage. eg the slowness of tortoises. In the human context, an example would be homosexuality or sickle cell anemia, both of which are clearly not very good for that particular organism's chances of getting its genes into the next generation.
Provided you are SURE, when putting forward a sociobiological explaination, that you are focussing on the correct trait (the toughness of the tortoise rather than its slowness, the resistance to malaria rather that the disease) all well and good. When it comes to explaining human behaviour that essential chain in the argument is not easily satisfied IMHO.
Plus and entirely seperately so many sociobiological claims are unfalsifiable. why does homosexual behaviour occur, for instance? You could put forward explanations that MIGHT be true, but can you put forward any that can be tested?
Not testable = not science ((c) Karl Popper et al)
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
The real problem seems to pop up in
Table 3.2 (Live Births outside Marriage) where the percentage of births outside wedlock under the age of 20 has shot up from 26.1% in 1971 to a haunting 90.2% in 2003. The precentage of births out of wedlock for all mothers' ages went from 8.4% in 1971 to 42.4% in 2003.
Just remember that a lot of children weer born in marriage but perhaps only 6 months into it, meaning the good night of fun didn't happen inside marriage. And the will to marry was not eaxactly that much better, but it was a simple fact that in many countries you couldn't even get a flat unless you were married. Kind of puts things into a perspective. Marriage was forced onto many from the outside.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
I stand corrected.
Sociobiological explanations can be falsified in principle. Distribute families randomly over two conditions, one with high control over the environment and the other with low and see who gets more pregnancies. Unfortunately, those reactionary fools in the ethics commissions for scientific research don't agree on the necessity of this. (j/k)
Since that is not possible, we have to use correlational data. If you do not accept the validity of these, you have to reject not only sociobiology but also most of sociology and a number of other scienitifc disciplines. Sociobiological explanations are not worse than others for the behaviour of populations. In fact, at least they base on a rigorous scientific theory.
Not every quality of an organism may have an adaptationist explanations, but an unproven explanation is better than no explanation. If someone can give a reason why the tortoise is slow, that's better than saying "it just is so".
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
That is a widespread view but I reject it. Common sense would tell us that many children that have nothing are not a better family welfare than a few children that have nothing. In fact, I would claim that high birth rate is a cause for welfare problems, not a remedy of it.
A lot of agrarian families have lots of children to create the labour for the farms and to look after the parents in old age.
As government welfare increases and higher trained jobs increase the amount of children diminishes.
Re: Proud to pay my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
If someone can give a reason why the tortoise is slow, that's better than saying "it just is so".
A tortoise is slow for the same reason you don't see 100m sprinters in chainmail...
