Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls From: dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Re: Intelligence & SocioBio Message-ID: <875@mtgzz.UUCP> Date: Sun, 30-Jun-85 01:05:52 EDT Article-I.D.: mtgzz.875 Posted: Sun Jun 30 01:05:52 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 07:55:34 EDT References:<443@unc.UUCP> <252@rti-sel.UUCP> <>, <495@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ Lines: 30 By all means, read "Not in Our Genes" that "devastating critique" of sociobiology. I did. So did the reviewer for "New Scientist." We weren't impressed. Period. The authors of this book have placed their politics above science. No doubt many of the sociobiological claims concerning religion are ill-conceived. However, I believe most serious scientists believe that genes and behavior, nature & nurture interact in a complex fashion to create us as we are, and that this has important implications concerning mating & dating, even for humans. However, just what those implications are seems *confused* at this point, as should be expected in a young science. On a practical every day level, women do chose men, and men women, and they use various criteria to make these decisions. Whether these criteria are somehow genetically controlled seems unimportant to me. They may or may not be. However, they do exist. Women tend to chose men(baring mental illness) that they see some advantage in associating with. This is a much broader concept than "a good physique," and it seems to me much better approached via game theory than idle theorizing about sociobiology. Dale All opinions are my own, & not those of AT&T.