This is the most controversial post I have ever written in ten years of blogging. I wrote it because I was very angry at a specific incident. Not meant as a criticism of feminism, so much as of a certain way of operationalizing feminism. A few days ago, in response to a discussion of sexual harassment at MIT, Aaronson reluctantly opened up about his experience as a young man:
Max Gerber] I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. After all, group selection sounds like a reasonable extension of evolutionary theory and a plausible explanation of the social nature of humans.
Also, the group selectionists tend to declare victory, and write as if their theory has already superseded a narrow, reductionist dogma that selection acts only at the level of genes. In this essay, I'll explain why I think that this reasonableness is an illusion. The more carefully you think about group selection, the less sense it makes, and the more poorly it fits the facts of human psychology and history.
The problem is that it also obfuscates evolutionary theory by blurring genes, individuals, and groups as equivalent levels in a hierarchy of selectional units; Most importantly, it has placed blinkers on psychological understanding by seducing many people into simply equating morality and culture with group selection, oblivious to alternatives that are theoretically deeper and empirically more realistic.
Does this mean that the human brain has been shaped by natural selection to promote the welfare of the group in competition with other groups, even when it damages the welfare of the person and his or her kin? If so, does the theory of natural selection have to be revamped to designate "groups" as units of selection, analogous to the role played in the theory by genes?
Several scientists whom I greatly respect have said so in prominent places. And they have gone on to use the theory of group selection to make eye-opening claims about the human condition. Wilson explains, "In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals.
But, groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals.
They suggest that evolution has equipped humans to solve tragedies of the commons also known as collective action dilemmas and public goods gamesin which actions that benefit the individual may harm the community; familiar examples include overfishing, highway congestion, tax evasion, and carbon emissions.
And they have drawn normative moral and political conclusions from these scientific beliefs, such as that we should recognize the wisdom behind conservative values, like religiosity, patriotism, and puritanism, and that we should valorize a communitarian loyalty and sacrifice for the good of the group over an every-man-for-himself individualism.
I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. Why does this matter? I'll try to show that it has everything to do with our best scientific understanding of the evolution of life and the evolution of human nature.
And though I won't take up the various moral and political colorings of the debate here I have discussed them elsewhereit ultimately matters for understanding how best to deal with the collective action problems facing our species.
The first big problem with group selection is that the term itself sows so much confusion. People invoke it to refer to many distinct phenomena, so casual users may literally not know what they are talking about. I have seen "group selection" used as a loose synonym for the evolution of organisms that live in groups, and for any competition among groups, such as human warfare.
Sometimes the term is needlessly used to refer to an individual trait that happens to be shared by the members of a group; as the evolutionary biologist George Williams noted,"a fleet herd of deer" is really just a herd of fleet deer.
And sometimes the term is used as a way of redescribing the conventional gene-level theory of natural selection in different words:I will then move onto to explaining the benefits of actively promoting positive aspects of behaviour as well as explaining the strategies for actively promoting positive aspects of behaviour.
We will write a custom essay sample on Promote Children and Young People’s Positve Behaviour specifically for We will write a custom essay. Explain the benefits of actively promoting positive aspects of behaviour Demonstrate ways of establishing ground rules with children and young people which underpin appropriate behaviour and respect for others Demonstrate strategies for promoting positive behaviour according to the policies and procedures of the setting Demonstrate realistic, consistent and supportive responses to 50%(2).
Complexity characterises the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, meaning there is no reasonable higher instruction to define the various possible interactions.. The term is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence.
Also, “it starts to look like me and the feminists” should be “looks like I”. And “untitled” doesn’t really make sense.
And if biology is a hard science, it’s on the extreme soft edge of hard sciences. School Climate: Academic Achievement and Social Behavior Competence. The purpose of this technical brief is to provide an operational and applied overview of school climate that can guide decisions related to policy, professional development, and practice and systems implementation at the classroom, school, district, and state levels (by Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports).
Explain the benefits of actively promoting positive aspects of behaviour Praise is the most powerful and effective form of positive recognition you can give to a child.
In my setting we have a consistent and meaningful system of rewards which increase the pupils self esteem and promote positive behavior.