|
| |
HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND EVOLUTION SOCIETY
Newsletter
Volume V, No.1 February, 1996
Editor: Elizabeth M. Hill
CONTENTS:
Richard D. Alexander
This fall included a first for me: An invitation to speak on evolution
at the First Presbyterian Church in Ann Arbor. This landmark event
caused me to recall another invitation, in early 1969, to talk
to the Royal Society of Victoria in Melbourne on human behavior
and evolution. The room was deathly quiet as I spoke there, and
I had the impression that all those Australian scientists were
extremely tense. Afterward my friend, Murray Littlejohn, evolutionary
biologist from the University of Melbourne, remarked that "The
black robes and clerical collars weren't there, but their ghosts
were!" The same tension may have existed in the Presbyterian
Church this fall, but at least the audience was church members
not scientists. An advance, but perhaps a small one across a quarter
of a century.
I also remembered that a reviewer of my 1987 book, The Biology
of Moral Systems, wrote that it was embarrassing that I had brought
up God, perhaps because I was asking how the concept might have
originated. It is easy for any of us to be offended if someone
speaks in an irreverent way about something we regard with reverence
(I don't mean to refer here to deliberate or flashy attempts to
be irreverent, just the ordinary garden variety). Religions seem
invariably to include ideas, ceremonies, and practices that adherents
regard with reverence. Sometimes we regard some aspect of our
own ancestries with reverence -- even with the potent kind of
reverence that causes special offense to be taken at analyses
suggesting that self-deception may be involved. Sometimes we scientists
take offense at light-hearted or cynical treatments of science,
of our particular science, of our friends and family, or, especially,
of those dearest of all objects of reverence, our own individual
selves.
It is easy to express defensiveness by attempting to place legal
or punitive restrictions on offensive talk, over and above the
kind of sharp or critical response that under "free speech"
is an obvious recourse. The supposition seems to be especially
prevalent, just now, that bad thoughts lead to bad talk which
leads to bad actions. Undoubtedly that is true sometimes, but
isn't it primarily when the "bad talk" does not prompt
critical or countering ideas? One has to ask where responsibility
lies, whether in preventing the talk (or punishing it as if it
were action), or in offering the kind of buttressed verbal critique
that causes the original nastiness to be judged (exposed as?)
inappropriate or unprofitable, eventually even by its original
protagonist. How else do "bad" ideas get nailed? And
what is going on if people don't nail bad ideas when their presence
is revealed by bad talk?
HBES is repeatedly described as dealing with an extremely sensitive
set of subjects, and for this reason skating on thin ice with
respect to the favors of society. It's not surprising, perhaps,
that we continually hear one or another version of "We must
be especially careful not to offend people," and "Let's
just play it down and hope it goes away." A few years ago,
at the University of Michigan, a certain poster among those accepted
en masse for an HBES program came from an individual whose work
most of us viewed with dismay because we regarded his conclusions
as based on faulty evidence. A few graduate students threatened
to resign if we didn't disinvite the poster, and even to picket
the meeting and try to destroy it by telling every radically anti-evolutionary
or anti-sociobiological organization on campus to join the pickets.
They rejected a suggestion of faculty that the poster be allowed
and critical posters be placed near it. I wasn't on campus when
this happened, or when the poster was indeed disinvited, but I
agreed with several faculty who did not support the decision.
It's precisely when things are unpopular that free speech has
to be defended, not when everyone thinks what is being said is
accurate or useful or desirable. In a "free speech"
environment you counter with words, ideas, and arguments, not
by suppression of words, ideas, and arguments. How else can evidence
and facts win out?
Shortly after the above event, a manuscript by the same author
was judged by three referees, who said, respectively, that the
author was (I) courageous (and right), (2) so wrong that if the
manuscript was published a reply must be allowed, and (3) wrong
in several ways that needed to be corrected before the manuscript
was even considered for publication. In the end the manuscript
was rejected, explicitly not on scientific grounds and explicitly
on political grounds, because of a stated fear that it might damage
the involved journal and the society with which it was affiliated.
I happened to be the third referee, and I objected strongly to
that decision. I felt that if the manuscript couldn't be rejected
on scientific grounds, it shouldn'd have been rejected.
Reverence is associated with faith and authority, not science.
In preparing to speak on evolution to those Presbyterians I found
myself thinking long and hard about a philosophical question that
is fundamental for all humans (I say this with much trepidation,
knowing how many people have tried to identify fundamental philosophical
questions!). This question is when, or to what extent, to rely
on faith or to seek proof in the endless succession of large and
small decisions each of us is called upon to make every day all
day long. When and how do we decide to accept authority, and when
and how do we decide that we nee more evidence? When someone first
said electromagnetic fields cause cancer, I waited for further
tests because it would have been so expensive to do otherwise.
If, however, someone says eating a helping of green vegetables
every day can dramatically reduce the possibility of certain cancers,
the expense is so slight compared to the potential benefit that
I'll adjust my eating habits while I wait for the next study (which
I will almost surely accept, in some sense, on authority). It's
silly to think we don't, in some sense, rely on authority continually,
and in too many ways to count. It's also silly, in my view, to
rely on authority when you can easily and inexpensively secure
definitive evidence. Sometimes I am depressed that there seem
to be immensely broad arenas of human endeavor in which only a
fragment of the populace has any notion of what constitutes evidence,
or seems to care. All too often, reverence rules, contrary to
facts. But none of us can claim to be completely exempt.
A recent book review in our journal raised some furor because
the review spoke irreverently about some things many people regard
with reverence. I winced mightily when l read the review because
I don't think it is often positive to make a point of being irreverent
in ways or to degrees that are unnecessary, and I thought that
was happening here. As a result of having had this feeling in
response to some previous comments by the same author, in a talk
and another manuscript, I had earlier asked him (somewhat pointedly,
I am afraid) what was his overall goal. He replied (earnestly,
I believe) that he felt it was important to show that a document
(the Bible) widely regarded as a model of goodness, is not always
that. I suggested that he could be more effective by including
a discussion of changes across time. Otherwise, his enterprise
might parallel using pre-Darwinian biology to show that all of
modern biology is based on faulty premises. I pay attention sometimes
to what is said by current theologians, and mostly I find cause
to believe that only good is being contemplated consciously. Nevertheless,
I told the Presbyterians at the outset that I believe I became
an evolutionary biologist partly because of things I heard as
a child in church (they laughed when I identified it as a Methodist
church). Even though I was exposed there to the teaching that
all people are equal in God's eyes, I became aware quite early
that I was not hearing any preacher pray, "God bless everyone
everywhere equally." I heard many preachers, however, say
something like "God bless the members of this congregation
and all those too ill to attend." As a Protestant I also
heard Catholics and people of other religions discussed disparagingly
-- even other Protestants, and other "kinds" of Methodists!
Maybe this criticism of my own religious background, which I have
carried all my life, is becoming less appropriate because nowadays
I often hear people being fairly inclusive in their prayers and
admonitions (although I am often impressed at the extent to which
God is said to have helped every winner of every public contest,
presumably to the detriment of all the losers). That's what I
meant by asking the above book reviewer to think about including
a time element. I have not recently heard a preacher cite as a
moral model the biblical passages the reviewer cited extensively.
On the other hand, news accounts seem to provide ample evidence
that people in the world sometimes (still?) act precisely as described
by that author from the Old Testament: Killing "the enemy's
men and boys and taking its women and girls as slaves or servants
(at least enemies strong enough to be a continuing threat, and
weak enough that such havoc can be wreaked upon them). In my opinion,
we need to think hard on this point and not be so preoccupied
with our various reverences that we fail to realize that our history
(as humans -- all of us) indicates that we have for a very long
time been capable of using authority to justify actions so pernicious
that most of us today quail upon hearing of them. I wish I felt
that American society (or society as a whole) were moving steadily
in a direction opposite to those group-against-group actions described
and apparently condoned or advocated in some parts of the Old
Testament. I'm scared that -- despite some extremely public efforts
to defeat racism and discrimination -- we may actually be undergoing
an opposite trend. What are those of us especially concerned about
the history and reasons for human behavior going to do about that?
Just keep quiet and act nice because society hasn't decided yet
whether it likes our kind of biologist? I hope not, because if
we don't have some insights into such questions that others do
not, then our science may not be as useful as we sometimes seem
to think.
Richard Alexander, President
Randolph Nesse, Chair, Publications Committee Elsevier Scientific
Publishing, in conjunction with the HBES, is pleased to announced
that Martin Daly and Margo Wilson will become Co-Editors In Chief
of Ethology and Sociobiology. Their appointment followed a careful
process of consultation with HBES. As most HBES members know,
Michael McGuire and Nick Blurton-Jones founded Ethology and Sociobiology
in 1980. They nurtured the journal together over the decades and
created a position for a European Editor, first William McGrew,
then Peter Smith. While negotiations between HBES and Elsevier
were unfolding three years ago, Michael McGuire said that he would
like to step down from his editorial role, but would be willing
to stay for a period of transition. Elsevier said they wanted
to have an Editor-in-Chief for the journal, as is the case for
their other journals. With consultation from our Society, they
appointed Michael McGuire to that post. At that time, again in
consultation with the HBES- Publications Committee and Council,
Martin Daly was appointed as a new Associate Editor. When Michael
McGuire said last summer that he wanted to complete his term as
Editor, the HBES publications committee wrote to all current Associate
Editors and only Martin Daly was willing to be considered for
the post. Elsevier strongly supported this move and approached
Martin, who said that he would accept the position but would serve
far more effectively if Margo Wilson could be appointed Co-Editor
in Chief. Elsevier supported this plan with enthusiasm, the HBES
publications Committee voted unanimously to nominate Martin Daly
and Margo Wilson, and the HBES Council voted without dissent to
support the recommendation. On that basis Elsevier has made the
appointment.
We are grateful to Michael McGuire for his dedicated service,
good judgment, patience, and foresight in building Ethology and
Sociobiology into the wonderful journal it is. We thank Elsevier
for working closely with us to make a superb appointment in a
process of smooth transition. We thank the Associate Editors Nick
Blurton-Jones, Peter K. Smith, and Michael Raleigh for their continued
excellent work on behalf of the journal. And finally, we welcome,
with great appreciation and anticipation, Martin Daly and Margo
Wilson as the new Editors-in-Chief.
Martin Daly and Margo Wilson
We have volunteered to succeed Michael McGuire as Co-Editors-in-Chief
of the official society journal Ethology and Sociobiology (E&S).
We understand that our proposal has been accepted by the HBES
Publications Committee and HBES Council, and by Elsevier Science
Publications. It looks like we're your new editors.
We are very pleased to have the opportunity to edit this fine
journal, and we'll work hard to make it even better. A four-page
HBES section will be added. The journal will remain a scientific
journal: Acceptable papers will present novel empirical results
and/or theory development with empirically testable implications.
We recognize, however, that HBES includes an active, high-quality
group of scholars in the humanities as well as the sciences, and
we hope and expect to accommodate their interests, too, without
compromising the criterion of scientific testability.
One of the strengths of HBES and of E & S is interdisciplinary.
This is a strength we intend to retain and to build on. Many anthropologists,
psychologists, biologists and psychiatrists are longtime members
of the society, but participation by economists, sociologists,
humanities scholars and others is growing and will continue to
grow. We want to encourage that growth and to encourage HBES members
from all academic disciplines to consider the society's journal
an appropriate outlet for their best work. We believe that a change
of the-e journal's name to Evolution and Human Behavior would
help promote these objectives.
Through 1996, Ethology and Sociobiology will continue to be edited
by the present board of Michael McGuire, Nick Blurton Jones, Peter
Smith and Martin Daly. Our editorship is scheduled to begin with
the first issue of 1997. We want to thank past editors, especially
Mike (and to thank Toby Cronin, the genius behind the scenes),
for all that they've achieved. We will undoubtedly continue to
call on them all for expert help.
And we'll be calling on you, the HBES membership, too. To submit
strong papers. To act as reviewers. And to send us your suggestions
and your criticisms regarding the journal's evolution.
From the Treasurer Patrick McKim
As of late December 1995, HBES membership was at 522, up from
433 at the end of 1994--an increase of about 20%. The membership
list had 395 Regular members (of which 26 were couples registered
as Joint members) and 127 Students (of which 6 were Joint). We
had 396 members residing in the USA, 42 in Canada, 58 in Europe
and 26 in other regions of the world. However, 238 of our 1995
memberships (that's 45%) have expired as of January 1, 1996. Please
check the mailing label on this newsletter to see if your membership
has expired. If it has, please fill out the membership form and
renew as soon as possible. One good reason for avoiding delay
is that it takes Elsevier 6-8 weeks to get new (and belatedly
renewed) subscriptions into their pipeline.
The 1995 HBES Membership Directory was (finally!) published and
mailed to all 1995 and 1996 HBES members in January. Every effort
will be made to publish this year's Directory in Fall of 1996.
I know that in many cases, member's data in the 1995 Directory
were incorrect or incomplete. If this applies to you, please send
corrections to the Treasurer. I prefer that you use the new Membership
Form for this. If you are sending me new data but not renewing
your membership at the same time, just write "Data Correction"
at the top of the form. You will notice that the Membership Application/Renewal
Form has a new look. The main change is the inclusion of a box
for alternative addresses for the Membership Directory. Some members
may prefer to receive HBES mailings such as journals and newsletters
at their homes but wish to have their school or office address
listed in the Directory.
On the back side of the new Membership Form, you'll see the basic
information on the Society, along with instructions for subscription
problems and changes of address. Please do not send changes of
address to Elsevier, as they do not pass on that information to
me. Also, please note the section entitled Policies on Dues and
Memberships. This explains why all memberships expire on January
I of a given year, regardless of when the member first enlisted
in HBES. Finally, I want to encourage donations to a very good
cause, the HBES Student Fund, and thank those who donated in 1995.
Postdoctoral Fellows, Decision Making Algorithms Max Planck Institute
The Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck
Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Germany is seeking
applicants for one Predoctoral Fellowship (tax-free stipend DM
21,600) and one Postdoctoral Fellowship (tax-free stipend range
DM 36,000-40,000) for one-year positions beginning in September
1996. The working language of the center is English. Send applications
(curriculum vitae, letters of recommendation, and reprints) by
March 15, 1996 to:
Professor Gerd Gigerenzer, Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition,
Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Leopoldstrasse
24, 80802, Munich, Germany
1996 Politics and the Life Sciences Conference July 25-27, 1996;
Alfred University In Conjunction with ESS The Association for
Politics and the Life Sciences and Section 12 (Biology and Politics)
of the International Political Science Association plan to co-sponsor
(with the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences of Alfred University)
a meeting at Alfred University from July 25 to 27, 1996. Program
organizers are Albert Somit, James N. Schubert, and Steven A.
Peterson. Those who are interested in proposing paper topics should
submit them by March 15, 1996 to:
Dr. Steven A. Peterson, Division of Social Sciences, 1 Saxon Drive,
Alfred University, Alfred, NY 14895 Phone: 607-871 -2215, Fax:
607-871 -2114, email: fpeterson@bigvax.alfied edu) |
