|
tweakabelle -> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it (5/11/2011 6:12:02 PM)
|
quote:
VincentML
We see a great deal of aggression in the under-developed nations and in our own. Particularly amongst people of colour. But also among whites in the United States predominantly, but not exclusively, in the rural South. However, it is more often failed aggression because it is stifled by privileged political class and lack of effective weapons, or aggression expressed as ineffectual criminal activities. Rebellions and protest against the political classes are ever present in our news stories. It is just silly and without foundation to say that the majority of people in the world are not prepared to act aggressively as their primitive ancestors did. It is more proper to say that most do not have the opportunity or fear the consequences. The world’s population is always on fire and it is not due to just the behaviour of a few. The genetic propensity for hostility is alive and well, and a natural characteristic of our species.
Thank you for presenting your case. You argument appears to be genetic factors produce hormones which influence gendered behaviour such as ‘aggression/violence’.
Evidence is introduced that males engage in more physically violent behaviour (emotional/verbal aggression or violence is not considered as aggression/violence in your account). Tying your argument to gendered behaviours is perhaps not the best move. The social gender training of infants begins as soon as they arrive in the world (“it’s a boy/girl”). Before an infant even has a name it has a gender. Whatever evidence exists is therefore contaminated by socialised gender training from the very beginning. To arbitrarily assign this to genetic causes is unacceptable, as is the narrow definition of aggression.
Regardless of this, even your own evidence contradicts your position. “Aggression” you tell us is said to peak “around 2–3 years of age”. Yet you admit that androgens aren’t produced by boys in huge amounts till puberty, roughly a decade later. If it is true that aggression peaks at around 2–3 years of age, then something other than androgens would seem to be the likely candidate. This seems to contradict your thesis.
The argument that gendered aggression in males is genetically determined is shallow. Your claim is that there is a “high correlation between these hormones [androgens] and aggressive behaviour.” There is a mountain of evidence, most of it undisputed, that boys are trained in physically ‘aggressive’ behaviour and girls trained to avoid physically ‘aggressive’ behaviour by all around them from Day 1. A reasonable interpretation of this is that aggression is socially implanted, and moulded in differing ways for boys and girls. Even you acknowledge that hormones are produced by behaviour/environment when you state: “Testosterone levels are subject to situational influences, as we saw in the case above for athletes getting ready for a contest “. Yet, no attempt is made to exclude/examine/disprove this hypothesis. Your argument therefore fails to exclude alternative plausible explanations.
It is a common though unproven assumption that hormones cause behaviour. This is rather odd, as the corollary, behaviour/environment produces hormones isn’t disputed. The perception of risk/danger produces a flood of adrenalin, for instance. Other well known examples are the earlier age of onset of menses in girls, or changes in average height amongst the Japanese following lifestyle changes post-World War II. Why should we accept the unproven assumption that hormones produce behaviour a la your thesis, when we know the opposite to be valid? Not logical.
I could go on and on, taking your hypothesis apart forensically but what’s the point? Even you acknowledge that your hypothesis is unproven when you state: “In time further research will show the hormones and neuron receptors involved. Eventually this linkage will be traced back to specific gene clusters.” This is written in the future tense. This is a hope, an aspiration, at very best a prediction. It is a clear acknowledgement by you of the speculative nature of your argument.
Thus, even by your own account your hypothesis is unproven, at best speculative. Nor IMHO is it even clear the thesis is plausible, given the weakness of your central argument connecting genes, hormones and gendered behaviour. Everyone agrees that gender (as distinct from biological sex) is a human achievement, not a biological imperative.
Your case is riddled with vague (sometimes sexist, sometimes verging on racist) assumptions, indefensible generalisations, narrow self serving interpretations, and glaring contradictions. The inherent sexism gives us a clue to the political nature of the hypothesis. It’s really about male supremacy, an apology for male violence as somehow ‘natural’ and therefore immutable.
Shoddy science like this has long been used to support male violence and hegemony, racism, to underwrite eugenics and whole load of other nasties. It reflects a strong cultural belief that human behaviour is 'naturally' rooted in our animal 'instincts' and history, not the current state of knowledge. Thousands of research projects have sought to prove this in over a century of research. None has succeeded. It's really time to call it quits.
Nowadays behavioural biological determinism (of which genetic determinism is one variety) is taught as the Naturalist Fallacy. It is an excellent example of how science/knowledge gets corrupted/distorted as it gets simplified and used for political purposes. It is as valid in today’s world as alchemy.
|
|
|
|
