Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;   s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;   h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;   b=daFp/S5B6SlTRz+IGqaK5OjRWEkFCv6FifXcoKcXdxTUJzCnfV3T2/aPkrmIEOdfbPUt5erw/XuCvbn+F3c5hSWZEAa02e+MdNiJ/HrBFFyayCD5BCOl5Lk+H4+CCF5ebu8+jjtca5HMoKJkIKrD4kJtxpbdN+ywiNqgMRuYGkc=  ;
Message-ID: <20051102222557.81206.qmail &AElig web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511021414230.16188 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:25:57 -0800 (PST)
To: improvetheworld-noarchive &AElig umich.edu
From: "Erica O'Connor" <luca2032 &AElig yahoo.com>
Subject: definitions
Status: O

Here's an from Lee Cronk article "Human Behavioral
Ecolgogy" Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 20: 25-53
(Volume publication date October 1991) 
     Behaviors can be explained in a variety of
complementary ways at    
     different levels of causation.  Proximate
explanations deal with the   
     physiological mechanisms and culturally
transmitted knowledge 
     behind behaviors.  Ontogenetic explanations focus
on how 
     behavioral patterns and the proximate mechanisms
behind them 
     develop over the life course of the individual. 
Ultimate or distal 
     explanations concern the adaptive significance of
behaviors.  
Here's an example, though it may not be the best.  Men
have have proximate mechanisms to induce them to
prefer on average women with a particular hip to waist
ratio.  The ultimate explanation for this is that such
women are on average more fertile and thus better able
to pass on the male's genes.  But we don't explicitly
have this ultimate goal in mind, we just respond to
proximate influences which eventually cause us to
fumble along in the right direction (from our genes'
perspective, anyway).  Of course, proximate mechanisms
don't always work out the way they were "supposed" to
especially when they interact with novel environments.
 
Cultural group selection refers to the theory that
Darwinian selection can act upon a group at the
cultural level (but not the gene level because there
is more genetic variation within groups than between
them).  The idea is that cultural norms in society
might work much like genes do in organisms because
they satisfy the same requisite conditions for
selection.  Cultural norms are transmitted fairly
faithfully among those who are cosocialized (i.e.
heritability), there is variation in these cultural
norms, and competition between groups could drive
selection of these norms.  
Here's a random goolge definition of inclusive fitness
that seems alright:
     The expansion of the concept of the fitness of a
genotype to 
     include benefits accrued to relatives of an
individual since relatives 
     share parts of their genomes. Hence an apparently
altruistic act 
     toward a relative may in fact enhance the fitness
of the individual 
     performing the act.
I'm sorry if I used these terms hurriedly without
explaining them.  I was just worried about the length
of my response.  Thank you all for your patience and
interest.
-Erica


--- Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu> wrote:

> Rock on!  Can you define a couple terms for our
> listeners:
>    * proximate mechanisms
>    * inclusive fitness
>    * cultural group selection (references welcome,
> but I'll go on record as
>      suspecting this concept to be bogus --
> fortunately I don't think your
>      argument relies on it)
> 
> I don't have time to say more about this now other
> than that I'm with 
> Erica 100% on this.  Here's something I thought I
> forwarded some time ago 
> but it's not in the improvetheworld archives so here
> it is:
>   (I'm skimming through this again and it's pretty
> fascinating.  This was 
> written 20 years ago and there are a few areas where
> we have made more 
> progress.  Can anyone spot them?)
> 
> FEMINIST UTOPIA
> 
> > Synopsis: the battle is over; feminists still
> retain the
> > old world view; why?
> >
> > My friend and I are reasonably intelligent and
> observant
> > individuals... we simply do not see the injustices
> claimed
> > by modern-day "feminists". What we have seen and
> experienced
> > is probably the "utopia" dreamed of by the
> feminists who
> > fought so long and hard and claim that the battle
> still
> > continues... where? In undergrad and grad school
> (EE and OR)
> > I saw no discrimination . . .
> > My friend (a woman) . . .
> > who works in Marketing for medical products has
> seen no
> > discrimination. . . .
> > Since I've been working here I've seen no evidence
> > of discrimination. When we hear feminists make
> claims as to the
> > horrible world we live in and the tremendous
> injustices
> > done to women in it, we look around and wonder
> what planet
> > they are speaking of... it certainly does not
> resemble
> > how we perceive the USA in the year 1986... it
> does resemble
> > the USA in the past, but that is history.
> 
> We won!  We won!  The polls are in, the facts have
> been assessed, and we 
> won!  Relax sisters and brothers in the battle for
> equality; the war is 
> over and we can enjoy the well earned fruits of
> victory.
> 
> The ERA has passed and "Equality of rights under the
> law shall not be
> denied or abridged on account of sex" is the law of
> the land.
> 
> There is a female president in the White House, and
> the recently reached 
> parity in the number of men and women in both houses
> of Congress (and in 
> government at the state and local levels) ensures
> that Lincoln's rhetoric 
> is finally true.  We have "government of the people,
> by the people, and 
> for the people", rather than government of, by, and
> for men.
> 
> Women have been fully integrated into American
> business.  Half of the CEOs 
> and management of American companies are now women. 
> American labor unions 
> have at last realized the dignity and importance of
> the female worker; 
> half of the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.
> you encounter will be 
> women.
> 
> Men have been fully integrated into the American
> family.  The realization 
> has finally arrived that a couple's children are
> truely the equal 
> responsibility and right of both parents.  Men in
> great numbers have taken 
> up the call for decent and afordable day care
> because the need for it 
> impacts THEIR careers.  He, as often as she, leaves
> work when the kids are 
> sick.  Joint custody has become the rule in divorce
> cases, and where 
> custody is given to one parent it is as likely to be
> the father as the 
> mother.  Where couples can afford it and desire a
> one wage earner family, 
> househusbands are seen as often as housewives. 
> Where both work, housework 
> and childcare are shared on a friendly and equal
> basis.
> 
> The military establishment has ceased to coerce
> young people on the basis 
> of sex.  Young women who want to serve their country
> for a time or make a 
> career of the military are no longer shunted into
> auxilliary support 
> groups that have little to do with the real business
> of the military. 
> Young men who do not want to go into the military
> are not in danger of 
> being forced.
> 
> The fundamentalist religious right has reverted to
> being a religious 
> revival, and is no longer an anti-feminist political
> force.  They are 
> saving souls instead of bombing abortion clinics,
> lobbying against day 
> care legislation, and preventing birth control from
> being included in aid 
> packages to starving third world countries.  The
> Roman Catholic church has 
> relented on the issue of a male only celebate
> clergy. Since their 
> heirarchy is no longer forced to regard women
> primarily as temptation, 
> they can see them as fellow human beings. 
> Consequently the church no 
> longer takes political stands on issues like
> divorce, abortion, and birth 
> control.
> 
> American schools have ceased to be institutions that
> rudely push or subtly 
> cajole our children into old fashioned sex roles. 
> That article I saw in 
> this week's TIME, the one that quoted the
> superintendent of schools in 
> Massachusetts as saying "We discourage the girls
> from using scarce 
> computer resources because our boys are going to
> need that knowledge in 
> their engineering careers."  -- that article was a
> mistake.  The 
> retraction is even now being typeset.  The newspaper
> interview I saw last 
> month with some Minnesota teacher who was up for a
> major teaching award -- 
> he didn't really say that boys were easier to teach
> because girls were 
> flighty and cared mostly about dates and clothes. 
> It was all a mistake. 
> And no one wrote to the newspaper to call him on it
> and demand he be 
> denied his award (as they would surely have done had
> he made some similar 
> remark about blacks) because they knew it was a
> mistake.  We're all 
> waiting confidantly for the correction to be
> published.
> 
> And it's so wonderful to know that in my own life I
> can relax and enjoy 
> the feminist Utopia.  Tomorrow when I arrive at
> work, I will no longer 
> find an engineering company that employes hundreds
> of engineers -- and has 
> a growing staff of female engineers who can all go
> out to lunch together 
> and sit at the same table in a local restaurant.  I
> will no longer work 
> for a male department head who feels free to stand
> around the halls and 
> make remarks about how women are a pain to have in
> the work force because 
> they have no sense of teamwork -- probably, he says,
> because they never 
> played team sports in school.  I'll never again go
> into a meeting of other 
> staff people at my level and be suddenly afraid that
> I've blundered into 
> the men's room.  When I go to my local medical
> clinic the next time I know 
> I'll see an equal number of female and male doctors,
> not the one in twenty 
> ratio I've been used to -- and, of course, the
> support staff of nurses, 
> clerks, and technicians will be half men.  How
> wonderful it will be not to 
> have to worry any more about the cub scouts turning
> my boy into an 
> unthinking male chauvinist piglet by using 'girl' as
> a constant insult -- 
> "Come on there, what are you, a bunch of GIRLS, get
> out there and WIN." 
> How wonderful never again to explain to some male
> co-worker that I feel 
> about the word 'broad' the same way I feel about the
> word 'nigger' and 
> have him say "But I wasn't talking about YOU,
> Carole." as if that made 
> everything all right.
> 
> God, the more I think about it, the more wonderful
> it seems to be able to 
> live my life in the feminist Utopia.  Free at last,
> free at last . . . 
> Huh?  What?  Wait a minute, you mean it's not all
> true? But he SAID we 
> were living in the feminist utopia.  He said it
> right here on the net. 
> And his female friend agreed.  They MUST have meant
> that all these things 
> I've been talking about were true.  I mean, really,
> there couldn't 
> possibly be anybody so (?)impossibly naive(?), as to
> think that the 
> revolution was over and the utopia arrived if these
> things weren't true. 
> Could there?
> 
> 
>  					Carole Ashmore
> 
> 
> 
> --- \/   FROM Erica O'Connor AT 05.11.02 10:52
> (Today)   \/ ---
> 
> >     Thank you to everyone who has responded to my
> > comments and participated in this debate thus far.
>  I
> > feel as though it is far from resolved, however. 
> I've
> > taken a bit of time to collect my thoughts (and
> > supporting evidence!); so I hope that the topic
> hasn't
> > grown too stale to stand revisiting.
> >     Comments such as the following really stuck
> hard
> > in my throat.
> > "I agree that there will probably always be more
> women
> > who are better parents than their husbands than
> vice
> > versa."--Dave
> >     Dr. Reeves also expressed the belief that more
> > stay-at-home mothers than stay-at-home fathers
> would
> > be "in perfect conformity with mammalian
> instincts,
> > social structure, and the interest of the next
> > generation."
> >     Since when did we decide that men are
> *inferior*
> > at child rearing?  It should be obvious that the
> > simple fact that there are currently more
> stay-at-home
> > mothers and mothers as primary child care givers
> in
> > our society does absolutely *nothing* to inform us
> > about the superiority or desirability of this
> > arrangement in terms of the well-being of
> children--or
> > the well-being of society for that matter.  Female
> > mammals nurse their young.  Yeah, so what's the
> point?
> >  Does that mean that it is best for a human female
> to
> > be there to personally wipe her child's nose every
> > single time they sniffle?  And that she must
> choose
> > between this and a significant career?  Doubtful. 
> And
> > again, alone, the mere existence of breasts gets
> us
> > nowhere (except maybe backwards) in moral
> argument.
> > Remember that rape can also be considered a
> "standard
> > mammalian instinct".  Please, please don't make me
> go
> > on about the naturalistic fallacy; I will bore
> > everyone for sure.
> >     My original hypothesis was that individuals
> may
> > be more or less suited for child rearing but this
> > quality is not necessarily linked with the sex of
> the
> > parent.  And I stick by it unless I'm proved
> > otherwise.  I dug up a relevant family study for
> > everyone's enjoyment.  The PDF is attached.  The
> paper
> > compares the well-being of children in
> single-father
> > versus single-mother family structures.  The
> > researchers first give an informative overview of
> some
> > of the other work done on this topic.  If nothing
> else
> > this should convince us that the issue is anything
> but
> > settled in favor of female parents' "superiority".
> > This particular study does give good support for
> the
> > idea that men and women make equally good parents.
> > Interestingly, plenty of gender stereotypes
> related to
> > child-rearing gain no support.  For instance, male
> > single-parents aren't better disciplinarians as
> some
> > expected.  Just because some trait is
> traditionally or
> > historically associated with a particular gender
> > doesn't mean that it is immutably so.
> >     Analogously, I would need to see some
> empirical
> > evidence in support of the claim that women are
> not as
> > "biologically suited" as men to earn a living and
> > support a family.  Do note that this assertion is
> > simply the logical inverse of "men are better
> suited
> > biologically bring home the bacon"--something
> stated
> > outright or at least tacitly accepted by many thus
> > far.  (I wince at that for other reasons as well. 
> I'd
> > much rather bring home the tofu.)  Granted, in
> this
> > country it *is* more difficult for a woman to
> ascend
> > in the workforce than it is for a man.  But the
> reason
> > for this is hardly "biological" in the narrow
> sense of
> > the word.  Glass ceilings still exist.  In
> Michigan
> > women only make 67 cents on the dollar compared to
> men
> > in the same exact positions doing the same amount
> of
> > work.  Women only make up %15 of the US Congress. 
> I'm
> > sorry to pick on you, Dr. Reeves, but Dave is
> clearly
> > not pounding on open doors.  Pointing to a small
> > handful of women in prominent, powerful positions
> > doesn't mean we should be satisfied with such a
> > deficient status quo.  For the same reason it
> would be
> > silly to pronounce that racial discrimination is
> > entirely a thing of the past just because Barack
> Obama
> > is who he is.  These two highly relevant programs
> were
> > dropped in my lap recently.  (The NPR genie rarely
> > fails me.) They each feature a different study on
> > discrimination against women in the workplace and
> in
> > general.  There's plenty of fodder for discussion
> > here.
> >
>
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Aug/hour2_082605.html
> >
>
http://jackshow.blogs.com/jack/recent_shows/index.html
> >     Men have always and everywhere held the reins
> of
> > power.  We cannot easily rule out, then, that
> > patriarchal societies do a stellar job of
> "convincing"
> > a vast majority of women that they "want" to be
> > dependant baby-machines and need not aspire to
> much
> > else.  And possibly this is why we still have an
> > innocuous-seeming lopsided distribution of gender
> > roles.   This should at least be an open
> > question--especially considering all the obstacles
> > flung in the path of women trying to gain power. 
> But
> > regardless of the answer we are still free to
> decide
> > objectively what we want society to be like.
> >     Now for the perscriptive part of my argument.
> > But first I must lay a bit of groundwork.  Human
> > beings are indisputably ruled by their biological
> > compositions.  In as sense this is practically a
> > truism; however, it is also well known that
> behavioral
> > expression is environmentally contextual to a
> large
> > extent.  Lucky for us we are sufficiently
> self-aware
> > to purposefully manipulate our own environment
> (for
> > our purposes I mean primarily our cultural
> > environment) to suit our needs.  We are not stuck
> > embracing our so-called "biological tendencies"
> for
> > better or worse, nor do we need to think of
> ourselves
> > as shoving them shamefully under the rug.
> > Conceptualizing things in this way is not very
> useful.
> > Instead we should think of our natures as more
> > pleasingly manifested under certain conditions,
> some
> > of which can be manufactured.  So long as these
> > cultural constructions effectively work around,
> > manipulate, and cater to humans' proximate
> mechanisms
> > designed to maximize their inclusive fitness we're
> > golden!  Human behavioral ecologists have already
> > posited that such "work-arounds" must be employed
> in
> > order to allow for the high level of cooperation
> seen
> > in modern societies.  Amazingly, even behaviors
> very
> > costly to one's inclusive fitness are
> theoretically
> > sustainable in a population via cultural group
> > selection.  This is extremely encouraging.  It
> means
> > (to me, anyway) that we can imagine even more
> > prosocial societies than those that exist today. 
> And
> > we certainly need not resign ourselves to any
> > preordained gender roles.
> >     My argument does no rely on males and females
> > being essentially equal in all ways.  They are
> not.
> > But we have a plausible mechanism which
> circumvents
> > these pesky fears about male vs. female
> differences
> > frustrating social progress.  And by no means am I
> > suggesting this is the only mechanism by which we
> can
> > exact world improvement.
> >     Back to the original discussion.  It has been
> > shown that cross-culturally the more equitably
> public
> > and domestic duties are distributed among males
> and
> > females the less gender stratification exists.  We
> > should work towards that ideal.  Women voting,
> gaining
> > more power, and entering the workforce has been
> > categorically good, though a struggle all the way.
> > Thus, I consider many more permanent stay-at-home
> > mothers than permanent stay-at-home fathers as
> > distinctly counterproductive and undesirable.  We
> can
> > do a whole lot better.  There, took me a while to
> get
> > to it, but there it is.  I greatly appreciate your
> > endurance.  Any replies will be relished.  :-)
> >
> > -Erica
> > P.S.  References on cultural group selection
> available
> > upon request.
> >
> 
> -- 
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - - 
> google://"Daniel Reeves"
> 
> Reporter: Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western
> Civilization?
> Gandhi:   I think it would be a good idea.
> 
>