From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:46:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.120355.29113@cs.ruu.nl> rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:

>So why aren't we mortally afraid of other lethal animals ? Fear of spiders and
>snakes is no more rational than fear of lions, killer bees and wasps.
>Or tigers, wolves, bears and other large predators. Or scorpions, or rats.

Many people are afraid of scorpions, rats, wasps, bees, and even the
larger predators; if they are less productive of phobias they may not 
match the recognition neurons in the same way as well as spiders and snakes. 
Also, the larger animals may evoke a different response mechanism not
conducive to phobias.  Nobody said evolution or its consequences was
perfect or easy to understand; that doesn't mean we should throw out all
hypotheses of evolutionary causation as worthless, as you are wont to
do.

>As for enclosed places, many people have a phobia for open spaces. And fear of
>heights?

Fear of heights and open spaces served our more-distant ancestors quite
well, and perhaps some genetic combination and environmental stimulus
brings these up once in a while.  (Fear of heights being much more
common than fear of open spaces, it should be noted).  Much more study
of evolutionary hypotheses needs to be done; but you would shout us
down as Nazis before we even get the chance to do them.

>It seems to be more prevalent amongst certain cultures and less
>amongst others - and this goes for many more phobias

No doubt; I didn't say culture had zero impact.  I did say phobias are
clearly biased along epigenetic forms.

>>If phobias were culturally
>>based, they would be directed against things we _really_ need
>>to be afraid of, such as guns, cars, etc., but these do not typically produce 
>>such strong reactions. 
>
>A phobia for flying is well documented and not very rare. 

An instantiation of the fear of heights.

>And aggravated, or even created (taboos are a prime example - and people have
>died of "voudou".).

I don't know about voudou, but incest taboos are strongly epigenetic,
being modified only in trivial ways across cultures (eg is a cousin,
adopted daughter, etc. considered taboo.)

>get it's figures from Cyril Burt, or Burt-groupies. Or articles that quoted
>articles that quoted results from articles that quoted Cyril Burt.
>
>Or maybe the studies were conducted by that Nazi-professor Eysenck? 
>(And I'm not using "Nazi" just to insult - he is one).

Yes, you like Gould are using Nazis and Burt to insult, since there are many 
substantive studies done since Burt, and psychologists disagree with Burt's
methodology but most agree that there is a genetic component of intelligence.  
There have been plenty of frauds in the radical-environmentalist debate, 
including the grandest idiots of them all, the Lysenko school, but do
I bring them up when arguing with you people?  No, I talk evidence and
falsifiable theories because this is science, not politics or theology.

As for your use of Nazis, which has its own acronym "FIA" now because so
many idiots use it in this kind of cliched flame, the Nazi pogrom had nothing 
to do with intelligence  -- the Jews on average were slightly more 
intelligent, as well as producing a disproportionate number of the
intellectuals and scientists of the day, and the German scientists knew it.
You're just repeating the same idiotic PC garbage that I've heard from the 
Gould-groupies dozens of times before.  The Nazi pogrom was based on ignorance 
and prejudice for their own ideology, just as your argument is based on 
prejudice for your own radical-environmentalist ideology: you assume
that since genetic origins are politically incorrect, that therefore they
are scientifically incorrect.  It's like flaming against quantum
mechanics because somebody made a nuclear bomb out of it -- it's plain
idiotic, a Luddite fear of knowledge.

>...tantamount to showing your abuse of science and your
>political agenda. 

I'm just dying for you to let me know about my political agenda.  :-)

>(And about PC - I'm more than willing to debate on some other group why
>the attack on "PC" is nothing but a disguised attack on civil rights gained 
>during the 60's).

Please, do take your anti-science garbage to a politics group. I am
attacking PC because your political prejudices --  very naive political
prejudices at that, since sociobiology is not incompatable with and in
fact may be helpful to civil rights -- your political whinings
do not constitute scientific evidence.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written