To an extent there is some degree of truth with what he is saying, but it is dangerously heading towards absolute determinism without exception, and he presents no justification other than the authority of science. However it is important to point out that it is not peer-review scientific knowledge that we are absolutely determined to express a particular kind of argumentative style given a particular situation. Science describes general tendencies that we “may” express in order to gain an advantage, but this fact doesn’t determine that we will do so, and it makes no sense to try and convince people if they are “hard-wired” to think a certain way. Some people will resort to that method of intellectual bulling, but its important to make it clear that there is a lot more going on in society than genes, survival, and environment. Some people really do care about the truth, and they will sacrifice their egotistical impulses, and they will admit it when they are wrong; and not always because there is a survival advantage. The author does not make the absolute leap towards determinism; but he is dangerously on that edge because he presents his argument in such a way as to suggest or unconsciously imply that all human behaviour can be reduced to our genes.
Also, there is a tendency among people to speak of evolution as if its a sufficient cause of qualities as opposed to just being a process out of which we see certain qualities emerge. The person does not know it, but they are including their own philosophical renderings on top of what science actually teaches about evolution. Genes know nothing about survival. Many concepts we hold such as “winning” or surviving is not something evolution has an understanding of or even a concept of. These concepts only emerge within the social dimensions in which we find ourselves, where there is a rational conscious reaction to environment and the people around us. In the context of methodological naturalism, advantages have no meaning out side of a mind that understands what it means for something to be advantages; its a relative subjective concept that happens to be in this instant applied to survival. That’s not to say genes play no part at all, but they only have a “part”. It makes no sense to say that rationality exists simply so that we can “win”. There is no reason for evolution to produce intelligible reactions to particular environments that happen to be suited to those reactions. It sounds all a bit…
teleological. He would have been better of if he hand said that our
innate ability to
recognise rational distinctions in the world around us became a “useful” tool in respect of out-thinking our enemies. But then his argument would not have been so powerful since it now lacks that deterministic implication it once had.
Its also funny to me how he uses religious people in one of the images when he is talking about people not really being interested in the truth but rather they are just interested in wining; and thus reducing religion to merely a tool to have power over people. I don’t know if he is doing this intentionally, but if he is then this is a very clever silent form of brainwashing. He is using a truth while silently associating the negative of that truth with a particular kind of person in order to silently imply that such people are the very same people he speaks of when he talks about unrelenting dogmatism in the face of truth. In other-words religious people are ignorant and don’t want the truth. This too can be said to achieve an evolutionary agenda, further infusing this false prejudice against religion in peoples minds in-order to promote certain negative feeling towards such people because he finds them threatening. This is very much the same way racism works; negative images (
both conceptual and literal) of a black individuals behaviour being applied and inferred to the behaviour of the general populous. And of course, you can’t challenge that because he has already accused you of being
paranoid, as if there is never a good reason to suspect
prejudice. And you can’t strongly disagree with his presentation methods because he has already planted the idea in your head that you are just trying to “
win” because that’s how
evolution made us.
But then again perhaps I am completely and embarrassingly wrong.
oh well. We live on to win another day.
I just want to point out that psychology is a very dangerous and powerful weapon in the wrong hands. The main problem is that all of the arguments can be applied to his own behaviour.
Apart from that, I was entertained by his posts, and I found some of what he said to be interesting and to an extent true.
…But then again I could be just complimenting him to cover my tracks, because my real agenda is to win!
win!
win!
win!
so as to have power over you.
