Quoting grits-n-gravy: At about 11 minutes, we have no clear definition of "war". Can what pre-tribal societies engaged be described as war? I think conflating organized violence and war is a conceptual problem.

I haven't watched yet. It seems to me that you're making a distinction that would be awfully hard to back up. Whether what's being discussed is spears in the jungle or formal conflict between modern states, or probably even dominance games between adolescent girls, there's a lot more in common than not.

Quoting AemJeff: I haven't watched yet. It seems to me that you're making a distinction that would be awfully hard to back up. Whether what's being discussed is spears in the jungle or formal conflict between modern states, there's a lot more in common than not.

Agree.

or probably even dominance games between adolescent girls,

Disagree. I watched already. No talk about girls. We're too good for that.

Just a wonderful divalog. I have much to read and explore after this conversation. Thanks to you both!

I'll second ohcomeon. Fascinating talk. One particular note to John: You have, in the past, been accused of interrupting or trying to over-steer the conversation. I thought you avoided those glitches quite well today, even as you had to keep to time constraints. I'd love to hear you and Brian talk for another hour or two.

Quoting AemJeff: I haven't watched yet. It seems to me that you're making a distinction that would be awfully hard to back up. Whether what's being discussed is spears in the jungle or formal conflict between modern states, or probably even dominance games between adolescent girls, there's a lot more in common than not.

War has a particular connotation in political science and theory which is violence between two more or less highly centralized political communities, i.e. states, though I believe tribal societies engage in what can be called war. Later on in the conversation Brian recognizes the difficulty of applying that particular conceptualization to hunter-gatherer societies, or pre-tribal or band units. IMHO, I think the term 'war' should be restricted to organized violence (gang bangin' has a certain organization to it) between certain kinds of political entities.

I haven't seen most of the diavlog yet; I jumped down to the last topic on the list first. I just want to say that I find it striking (in a mildly nauseating sort of way) that, of all the peoples/ethnicities/races/etc. with distinctive stereoptypical behavioral and psychological patterns, those of Jews and Blacks are the focus of "serious scientific inquiry." Why not instead -- or at least also -- try to tease apart the cultural and genetic determinants in stereotypical Japanese or Irish or Moroccan (etc., etc., etc.) behavior and thought? For that matter, why not study whether this apparently very strong tendency of researchers to focus on Jews and Blacks when studying these sorts of nature-nurture questions is itself (partially) genetically determined, or instead entirely learned? This Wikipedia article, by the way, has a link to the 2005 Cochran et al. paper, "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence," as well as to several other articles on the topic, both academic and popular.

Wow.
One of the best diavlogs, in science or in general. Fruitful in the numbers of traces begging for exploration, and fruitful in speaking lucidly to all manner of questions hanging quietly in the larger cultural conversation. Brian embodies my academic ideal in his grasp of, and judgments drawn from, his field, and in his manner of seizing on pivotal issues and probing them for evidential truth and interpretive accuracy. Not incidental is his ability to speak without hesitation or fumbling to the point at question; as is his evident lack of calculation of personal or professional advantage. John’s contrasting manner of hesitation and casting about initially seems an obstacle, but proves itself effective for his purpose of guiding the conversation, in ways that maximize the quantity and quality of information available within the format. I very much hope we will encounter Brian here repeatedly in the future. His potential for enlightening contribution seems, if not limitless, certainly demanding far more exposure. If I were younger and had the means, I would be strongly drawn to becoming his student; and certainly relish the opportunity introduced here of exploring his scholarship. In a word:
Thanks

There was a talk given at the Atheist Alliance a couple of years ago by Andy Thomson, a psychiatrist, titled, "We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers". He talks about the roots of suicide bombers. He brings up the concept of male bonded coalitionary violence. It exists in many species - Thomson brings up the chimp studies. Another example is orcas (killer whales). Juvenile males are driven away from the pod and allowed to come back once they grow up. In the meantime, they hang out and act like a street gang. I think the capacity for violence and war is in our genes but biology is not destiny. Thomson talks about the socialization of males by females - something that does not happen in Muslim society. You might find his talk interesting.

For some reason, I just love this quote: For the war mongers, a little food for thought: On the Collective Karma of Warfare.... EW

Quoting Ocean:
Disagree.

I watched already. No talk about girls. We're too good for that.

Do you really disagree? If so I'm curious how.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: War has a particular connotation in political science and theory which is violence between two more or less highly centralized political communities, i.e. states, though I believe tribal societies engage in what can be called war. Later on in the conversation Brian recognizes the difficulty of applying that particular conceptualization to hunter-gatherer societies, or pre-tribal or band units. IMHO, I think the term 'war' should be restricted to organized violence (gang bangin' has a certain organization to it) between certain kinds of political entities.

That's a technical argument, and a perfectly good one. But you initially asserted a "conceptual" issue, and that's not the same thing as a technical distinction.

great diavlog. Science saturday is always interesting. next one needs to be on LHC !

Quoting BeachFrontView: next one needs to be on LHC !

Check! How about John Conway?

Quoting grits-n-gravy: War has a particular connotation in political science and theory which is violence between two more or less highly centralized political communities, i.e. states, though I believe tribal societies engage in what can be called war. Later on in the conversation Brian recognizes the difficulty of applying that particular conceptualization to hunter-gatherer societies, or pre-tribal or band units. IMHO, I think the term 'war' should be restricted to organized violence (gang bangin' has a certain organization to it) between certain kinds of political entities.

On your reference of political science, I wonder if this isn't a jargon problem, i.e. that different disciplines might use the same words but in specialized contexts. It might be useful to draw the distinction in political science, but get in the way of understanding the behavior to do the same in anthropology.

Quoting AemJeff: That's a technical argument, and a perfectly good one. But you initially asserted a "conceptual" issue, and that's not the same thing as a technical distinction.

I don't see definitional issues as technical distinctions. I just happen to have glanced at one of Brian's articles referenced here, The Birth of War, where he says anthropologists had initially conceived of warfare as violence between two or more groups no matter how small the groups or casualities, and that led nowhere. Oftentimes discussions around the origins of war proceed as though any kind of collective violence can be described as "war". Since neither blogger articulated a straightforward definition to start it sounded as if they were conflating violence and war, that was my only point. And I saw that as a conceptual issue, not a technical distinction.

Quoting mvantony: I just want to say that I find it striking (in a mildly nauseating sort of way) that, of all the peoples/ethnicities/races/etc. with distinctive stereoptypical behavioral and psychological patterns, those of Jews and Blacks are the focus of "serious scientific inquiry."

Well, regarding IQ, these two groups are both outliers of about a standard deviation of the mean, Blacks averaging at 85 and Ashkenazi Jews averaging at or near 115. Doesn't it make sense from research perspective to see what's going on with outliers, regardless of whether your perspective is nature or nurture?

Quoting Xelgaex: On your reference of political science, I wonder if this isn't a jargon problem, i.e. that different disciplines might use the same words but in specialized contexts. It might be useful to draw the distinction in political science, but get in the way of understanding the behavior to do the same in anthropology.

That's exactly the point. We invent words and their definitions. Then we find something new (or very old in this case) that can be classified under the same label, but we have to modify the definition or create a new word. I don't think that the exact definition is a major problem here. Perhaps one can talk about war-precursors. Like it?

Quoting ed fielding: Brian embodies my academic ideal in his grasp of, and judgments drawn from, his field, and in his manner of seizing on pivotal issues and probing them for evidential truth and interpretive accuracy. Not incidental is his ability to speak without hesitation or fumbling to the point at question; as is his evident lack of calculation of personal or professional advantage.

I agree. He is one of the most balanced and measured guests I've seen here. He was clear, concise and humble. What a pleasure to listen to!

Quoting Eastwest: For some reason, I just love this quote:

For the war mongers, a little food for thought: On the Collective Karma of Warfare....

EW

I agree. I actually posted a comment here exactly like that some time ago. It's sort of obvious, isn't it?

Quoting BeachFrontView: ... next one needs to be on LHC !

That is if it goes well...

Quoting quixotic-robotic: Well, regarding IQ, these two groups are both outliers of about a standard deviation of the mean, Blacks averaging at 85 and Ashkenazi Jews averaging at or near 115. Doesn't it make sense from research perspective to see what's going on with outliers, regardless of whether your perspective is nature or nurture?

First, let me just say that I have no position on the nature-nurture question here, and I view the question as an empirical one. But second, while I agree that, from some ideal perspective, it makes sense to want to know what going on -- ideally, after all, we want to know what's going on with everything -- I feel quite certain (though I don't have details to back it up, alas) that there are numerous, no less salient, behavioral and psychological differences between many other peoples/races/ethnicities/etc., where analogous nature-nurture research questions are equally fitting. (E.g., consider the role of honor in Japanese culture. This may be an outlier case, or close to one. Is there a genetic component to it? Ideally, that's something we'd like to know about. But who actually cares?) Do you doubt this? If that's right, then why the attraction to studying the psychological and behavioral properties of Jews and Blacks in

Excellent conversation. If I may just interject a pedantic note: Rousseau never uses the expression "noble savage." Moreover, the peacefulness of the "state of nature" is the consequence of the dispersion and solitariness of human beings before the formation of society, or civilization. As soon as society begins, the state of nature becomes every bit as nasty, brutish and short as in Hobbes. Modern anthropologists or evolutionary biologists would no doubt dispute Rousseau's claim that human beings could ever have existed in a solitary state, but that is another debate...

Ho-hum. Another fantastic Science Saturday. Every time John discusses violence and war I make the same suggestion, so here goes again: Get someone like Gene Sharp or Jamila Raqib of the Albert Einstein Institution to discuss nonviolent conflict resolution. The debate about the history of violence is wonderful, but we don't have to resolve the issues raised by Steven Pinker, Fran de Waal, Wrangham and Brian Ferguson in order to address how to reduce violence and promote peace now.

Interesting topic, well done. Query: since demographic pressure is more-or-less a given throughout human prehistory (how else did we spread out from Africa to inhabit the earth) isn't violent conflict inevitable when one group of hunter/gatherers impinges on the traditional hunting/gathering grounds of another? Attrition by violence I guess you might call it, and a good deal of starvation of the weaker. The only alternative would seem to be voluntary starvation in both groups, once all the best hunting/gathering places have been occupied. Or am I missing something? Hypothesis: once settled agriculture develops (maybe in response to forced migration to marginal hunting-and-gathering territories?) a new possibility emerges: Instead of killing ones neighbors when demographic pressures build, one can conquer them, i.e., subdue them and reduce them to servitude. This would explain the phenomena of political states, which, before long find themselves in competition with one another. Wars continue, clearly enough, but now it is between states ( I always liked the Chinese phrase, the "period of warring states") that are competing for power rather than food. Out of this conflict there emerge empires and civilizations. I have been playing with this idea for a long, long time (I am an old man) but not

I have to admit, I haven't watched the whole thing. I've jumped around a good bit. That's why I put this in the form of a question to see what others, who DID watch it all, think. Does it seem like Ferguson is arguing that war is simply a cultural artifact, and mostly attributable to the spread of Euro-culture? IF so, that's absurd. Unless we are going to parse the meaning of "war" as something you would not use if a dozen people were killed, even though that number may reflect a decimation of the society. There is no genetic reason to think that violence has NOT been part of our evolutionary history, and as that history expanded to include tribes, war would be attendant. No doubt some societies have been "more peaceful" than others over the vastness of time. But to think that any culture has been devoid of violence is simply a pipe dream. There is no genetic evidence for it - INCLUDING bonobos, which have been seen ganging up and beating the crap out of another bonobo. Some have argued that their hasn't been a documented death. This is irrelevant. Violent actions lead to deaths. Not in all instances, but

Quoting Wonderment: The debate about the history of violence is wonderful, but we don't have to resolve the issues raised by Steven Pinker, Fran de Waal, Wrangham and Brian Ferguson in order to address how to reduce violence and promote peace now.

I understand that John is writing a book on the "genesis" of war. He may want to get into alternatives to war in the later chapters. If he is looking at this from an evolutionary perspective, and I think he is, he may want to speculate on the next evolutionary step, as you suggest above. It would be very interesting to have guests discussing nonviolent conflict resolution. Let's hope we will.

Quoting Happy Hominid: I have to admit, I haven't watched the whole thing. I've jumped around a good bit. That's why I put this in the form of a question to see what others, who DID watch it all, think.

Does it seem like Ferguson is arguing that war is simply a cultural artifact, and mostly attributable to the spread of Euro-culture?

No. Not even close.

OK, thanks.

Dear My Friend Horgan, Thank you for finally bringing an academic to BheadTV who understands our mission in Iraq. The part I question though is why My Friend Brian Ferguson thinks anthropologists, psychologists and religious studies experts shouldn't be embedded with troops on our covert missions in Iran. Our fighting men and girls need the help of scientists who know the difference between good (us) and evil (them). Scientists can be objective and still be patriots! In fact, if they are objective, they will be patriots. Most people don't know this, but I was a POW in Vietnam. I wish the Cong had used some psychologist torturers. They would have expedited interrogations and saved me a lot of grief. Like in Gitmo: Why waterboard a guy when you can just do something like piss on his Koran? I thought this technique, reported in the commie Washington Post, that we developed with a team of civilian psychologists, was really excellent:

The inquiry uncovered numerous instances in which female interrogators, using dye, pretended to spread menstrual blood on Muslim men, the official said.

I don't think any crybaby liberals will say fake blood is torture. Another part of today's talk I now disagree with is

Quoting Happy Hominid: I have to admit, I haven't watched the whole thing. I've jumped around a good bit. That's why I put this in the form of a question to see what others, who DID watch it all, think.

This "good girl" did watch from beginning to end, and took notes...

Does it seem like Ferguson is arguing that war is simply a cultural artifact, and mostly attributable to the spread of Euro-culture?

I wouldn't put it in those words. He said that except for one finding in Sudan, the first archaeological evidence was found in today's Northern Iraq. These kinds of archaeological findings became more common with the spread of Euro-culture.

IF so, that's absurd. Unless we are going to parse the meaning of "war" as something you would not use if a dozen people were killed, even though that number may reflect a decimation of the society.

He didn't quantify. He did say that the archaeological findings had to include several skeletons with signs of violence by humans.

There is no genetic reason to think that violence has NOT been part of our evolutionary history, and as that history expanded to include tribes, war would be attendant. No doubt some societies have

Quoting mvantony: where analogous nature-nurture research questions are equally fitting. (E.g., consider the role of honor in Japanese culture. This may be an outlier case, or close to one. Is there a genetic component to it? Ideally, that's something we'd like to know about. But who actually cares?)

Well, don't know about studies on honor in Japanese culture, but people have studied personality differences and relationship of culture in the Chinese. The psychologist Robert McCrae found that Chinese individuals who grew up in Canada tended to have measures of certain personality traits, such as lower agreeableness and being out-going, more in line with Canadians than the control group of Chinese raised in Chinese culture. The interesting find was that it was the peer group, not the parents that seems to make the difference. Those who were raised early on in Canada were more likely to conform to the Canadian pattern of personality traits than those who migrated to Canada in adolescence. Regarding IQ, East Asians have been the subject of quite a bit of research, a number of studies establishing their mean being higher than average, at around 105 I believe. As for other ethnic groups

Quoting quixotic-robotic: As for other ethnic groups and study of their behavioral differences, I suspect with the rapid improvement in gene sequencing and the implications of that for better behavioral genetic research, we'll be seeing more and more research of this kind on all variety of groups. The potential benefits could be very large, say a drug for mental illness in an ethnic group analogous to the heart drug that was developed for African Americans, but there is also the potential for reinforcing and legitimizing prejudices. I suspect it's going to be one of the most contentious issues in the decades to come.

As you probably know, one of the problems with this kind of research is about definitions. What we call IQ is a very limited measure of some intellectual functions. Culture influences and shapes intellectual functions in the way they manifest. The way we measure has a cultural bias. And there are many other functions that are most likely related to intelligence, which we don't measure with IQ testing. That's one of the biggest problems while trying to interpret IQ's. If you don't take these in consideration, it is just

Quoting Ocean: I don't think they would disagree with you. Especially if you get violent. I wouldn't...

LOL! Yeah, that's me... I'll try really hard to control my inner chimp. Anyway, thanks for the update.

Quoting Happy Hominid: LOL! Yeah, that's me... I'll try really hard to control my inner chimp. Anyway, thanks for the update.

Welcome.

I agree on both accounts. Again, this pattern of offering dross during the weekdays to be redeemed on the weekends with pearls like this and UN Dispatch works with me now that classes have started again.

I wish the Cong had used some psychologist torturers. They would have expedited interrogations and saved me a lot of grief.

Is that the Viet "Cong", or a video game? John McCain: He Volunteered to Be the Manchurian Candidate

As I mentioned before, one of my undergrad profs, Christopher Kelly, was a student of Allan Bloom and a Rousseau specialist. As far as he related, this interpretation of Rousseau I offer is Bloom's as transmitted through Kelly. I also had a grad class on International Conflict Management which reinforced my predisposition towards a social, as opposed to an evolutionary, perspective, on war. I was an MI specialist in the US Army. Finally, I will confess to breaking a few skulls and knees growing up in South Baltimore in the 70s, and all those kids were white ethnics. Voltaire lampooned jean-Jacques Rousseau for The Social Contract.

"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it."

When Voltaire was exiled in Rousseau's birthplace, Geneva, he lamented and scorned the Genevans for not having a theater, or any entertainment for that matter. Rousseau bitterly responded to Voltaire's call for a public theater with a public letter condemning Voltaire's

Talking about war, you drop a bomb and leave... I had to read your post three times to figure out what you were talking about.
First, nice summary about Rousseau and his predicaments. Why did you bring up Voltaire? For contrast? Not sure... You cite Rousseau:

Quoting Baltimoron: Natural man would just as likely ignore one another as fight, because the modern basis for conflict is concern for what others think about oneself and property. Natural man only had a conception of himself.

What do you think about this? I don't have so much of a problem about Rousseau's conception of social man, but his natural man is not very compatible with more modern understanding of "primitive" man. Also, I find it very disturbing to think of man in such a state of separation from others. It starts with a duality (not referring to deeper philosophical concepts of duality here) of separateness where I think that most likely natural man, like many animals, doesn't have a clear awareness of himself as an individual, but rather has a group awareness. He exists as part of the group and as a function of the group. It would be later that the sense

Let's have more of these author interviews.

Voltaire's lampoon is important because it, and not Rousseau's writings, is remembered as what Rousseau meant. Rousseau never used the term "noble savage", nor did he advocate becoming one. And, he never characterized natural man as "nice, good, or friendly". But, Voltaire won that first PR battle. Voltaire and Rousseau were probably the first two writers who became celebrities: they both used their writings and lives to create a persona. Ironically, Rousseau published what seem like falsehoods about himself, if eyewitness accounts are believed, to accentuate his own decadence or naturalness depending on the argument. Voltaire used Rousseau more derisively than Rousseau did his other former colleagues among the philosophes to win the battle of the salons and press, but Rousseau used Voltaire as an example of the decadence of modern Paris. Voltaire stands for liberty and conscience, so his lampoon of Rousseau, who is associated with savages, Robespierre, and socialism, stands. Even Horgan and Ferguson are repeating it now. But, Rousseau considered himself a modern Spartan among Athenians, a Genevan among Parisians. Rousseau argued against original sin, and that children should not learn religion by rote, and it's for minor religious statements he foolishly included in the Emile he was exiled. But, arguing

Rousseau argues that war did not exist before property. What Ferguson describes sounds like neolithic man, which postdates the Rousseauian shift from natural man to social man. The dumb theory Ferguson talks about, war before Europeans arrived, is a Romantic, not Rousseauian, flourish. It was an aesthetic fashion become a political tactic scientists were fooled into proving or disproving through the university system. OK, yes, I still believe socios/anthros are astrologers.

Quoting Baltimoron: OK, yes, I still believe socios/anthros are astrologers.

Are they believers in the IPU? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Hilarious! It explains why after a few semesters, I started studying with fewer profs teaching more and more interdisciplinary subjects. Priests, Profs...what's the difference? At a certain point, all behaviorists doing stat work in the field will double back to the conversations they had while brain dead stoned in the dorm or apartment when they were a freshman trying to fuck the one girl left behind at the party.

Quoting Ocean: What we call IQ is a very limited measure of some intellectual functions.

Yes, but research has shown that the limited measure of intellect that IQ does give is a very good predictor of academic success. And in a society like the US where college and post-college degrees increasingly play a role in status and class, it's worthy asking how malleable this ability and then the implication of that for how meritocratic our economic system can potentially be. If there is a rigidity to IQ, for either genetic reasons or the difficulty in discerning the relevant cultural/environmental differences,
I think it's crucial to look at when discussing the fairness and equality of opportunity in our society and what can be done to redress it.

And then there is the problem of defining ethnic or racial groups. Some of those issues were recently discussed in a diavlog. There are no genetic markers that we know of.

There are no single gene markers, but examining the correlated structure of genes can be use to detect race. At least this what I recall from a study publicized a few years ago, where

Quoting quixotic-robotic: Yes, but research has shown that the limited measure of intellect that IQ does give is a very good predictor of academic success.

Yes, but there is no clear link between academic success and later "success" in life. Some of the research in this area suggest that EQ is more closely related to "lifetime success". I'm using quotations because all these concepts have serious definitional problems. There are no outcome measures that can include the many aspects of life that should be considered. Life satisfaction measures are used, but there are many others. But coming back to the main point, I agree with you that IQ, as imperfect and limited as it may be, is what we have at present and it has some utility for a variety of purposes. I just wanted to caution not to take as equivalent to the more general concept of "Intelligence".

There are no single gene markers, but examining the correlated structure of genes can be use to detect race. At least this what I recall from a study publicized a few years ago, where a computer was able to sort with high efficiency the individuals into

Quoting Baltimoron: OK, yes, I still believe socios/anthros are astrologers.

Shouldn't you add, what?, psychos...? Balt, One day we'll have to discuss this "putting down attitude" about social science, psychology, psychiatry and the likes. I've read quite a number of comments of that nature, and also, my friend John Horgan has made remarks of that sort, calling these disciplines pseudo-science. I am aware of the methodological limitations that these fields have, but, I don't think that the dismissive attitude I've seen here is justified. Could anyone explain that to me?

Quoting Baltimoron: Rousseau also wrote some of the most pessimistic prose about being a man in a community ever written. If one lines up his admirers, from Kant to Freud, it's hard to put them into a man named Rousseau. Rousseau could force all his arguments together, in a literary dialogue, not an essay, but no one since him can. It could be a riddle as tough as free will to crack.

Having had the patience, many years ago, to read Rousseau's Confessions cover to cover, his dark view of life and his rejection of social interactions was quite evident. The pathological circumstances of his childhood left a mark impossible to overcome. He was born in pain, lived in pain and died in pain.

Actually I think this is a decent characterization of how most people respond to Rousseau's arguments, and why Voltaire won his PR match. Voltaire's Lockean perspective was just more attractive as a liberal alternative to monarchy than Rousseau's radical critique of Parisian decadence. It required too much introspection of one's own life and other people. It was easier to lampoon Rousseau and his many faults, which he made very public.

In Voltaire's

Quoting Ocean: Shouldn't you add, what?, psychos...?

Balt,

One day we'll have to discuss this "putting down attitude" about social science, psychology, psychiatry and the likes. I've read quite a number of comments of that nature, and also, my friend John Horgan has made remarks of that sort, calling these disciplines pseudo-science. I am aware of the methodological limitations that these fields have, but, I don't think that the dismissive attitude I've seen here is justified.

Could anyone explain that to me?

Part of it is the old Lord Kelvin bias: If you can't express it in numbers, then your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfying kind or words to that effect. This is a righteous criticism in some ways; in others, not so much. The "hard sciences" -- those that can (currently) be highly mathematically-based -- I suspect, will be looked back on as the "easy sciences" at some point in the future. Part of it is a legitimate skepticism about how advanced a lot of the fields are, or, more accurately are not. There are good people in those fields doing good work, but there are also lots of hand-wavers and jargon spouters. In the end, I think it's wrong to dismiss the entire fields out of hand, although

Quoting bjkeefe: Part of it is the old Lord Kelvin bias: If you can't express it in numbers, then your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfying kind or words to that effect. This is a righteous criticism in some ways; in others, not so much. The "hard sciences" -- those that can (currently) be highly mathematically-based -- I suspect, will be looked back on as the "easy sciences" at some point in the future.

So the proposition is that we limit ourselves to the study of "exact sciences" which can be translated into mathematical equations? And the aspects of reality that due to their extreme complexity or inaccessibility to direct objective observation should be...what? Ignored?

Part of it is a legitimate skepticism about how advanced a lot of the fields are, or, more accurately are not. There are good people in those fields doing good work, but there are also lots of hand-wavers and jargon spouters.

If the critics of the field were to take more of an interest, instead of the dismissive attitude, they might be able to discern what is credible from what is flaky. One of the reasons psychology has been stalled is the

Quoting Baltimoron: Hilarious!

It explains why after a few semesters, I started studying with fewer profs teaching more and more interdisciplinary subjects. Priests, Profs...what's the difference?

At a certain point, all behaviorists doing stat work in the field will double back to the conversations they had while brain dead stoned in the dorm or apartment when they were a freshman trying to fuck the one girl left behind at the party.

You are trying to be funny, and notice I said "trying". Today I'm taking serious offense on anything that suggests a dismissive attitude about psychology or social sciences. If you want to be dismissive, I'll ask you that you fully support your claims. I guess I let this one go by too many times. Sorry, Balt, I'm tough on this one. Disagreement doesn't have to lead to war or preclude friendship, though.

Quoting Ocean: So the proposition is that we limit ourselves to the study of "exact sciences" which can be translated into mathematical equations? And the aspects of reality that due to their extreme complexity or inaccessibility to direct objective observation should be...what? Ignored?

That's what's at work in some people's minds, I expect. I hope I made clear that I'm not one of those.

If the critics of the field were to take more of an interest, instead of the dismissive attitude, they might be able to discern what is credible from what is flaky.

True, as with any other field of study.

One of the reasons psychology has been stalled is the objection posed by the rest of science about studying it "subjectively". The ridiculous attempt to limit the study of psychological phenomena to what can be externally observable has done more damage than good.

Here's where it gets sticky. I don't want to get into a long debate about what science is, but between this and your earlier statement about "inaccessibility to direct objective observation," that question has to be addressed by somebody. Science is, among other things, a method for learning and understanding

Quoting Ocean: You are trying to be funny, and notice I said "trying". Today I'm taking serious offense on anything that suggests a dismissive attitude about psychology or social sciences. If you want to be dismissive, I'll ask you that you fully support your claims. I guess I let this one go by too many times. Sorry, Balt, I'm tough on this one.

Disagreement doesn't have to lead to war or preclude friendship, though.

Baltimoron, Did any of your reading assignments include Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and/or Bruno Latour's We Have Never Been Modern? I'd love read your expositions on those texts to see if brings you down from your high horse of pure scientific learning.

I'll start with the last part in your post:

... it is possible to be well-informed about something and dismissive about it at the same time. Consider Hitchens and Dawkins and religion, for example.

As opposed to this example, when the same applies to social siences/psychology, I question how well-informed its critics are. There may be a superficial understanding of the field, but in my opinion, that's not enough.

Quoting bjkeefe: Here's where it gets sticky. I don't want to get into a long debate about what science is, but between this and your earlier statement about "inaccessibility to direct objective observation," that question has to be addressed by somebody. Science is, among other things, a method for learning and understanding that has some pretty specific guidelines that speak strongly to objectivity, impartiality, reproducibility of results, and so on. If you can't deliver along these lines, it starts becoming fair to ask, then why should we call what you're studying science? (I don't mean you in particular -- just speaking in the second person.)

In the same way that science has made some modifications, say for astronomy, since the observable phenomena being studied can't be reproduced experimentally, I would expect some modifications to be granted

Belittling the Social Sciences is just a defense mechanism, we don't like the unknown. Even though we cannot quantify reliably psychological parameters, we can conduct scientific experiments, one of the best examples is Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment. The other issue is that we may not like the observations and it is impossible to distance ourselves from human reality.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Belittling the Social Sciences is just a defense mechanism, we don't like the unknown.

Even though we cannot quantify reliably psychological parameters, we can conduct scientific experiments, one of the best examples is Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment.

The other issue is that we may not like the observations and it is impossible to distance ourselves from human reality.

Brave! That's another perspective on this topic, which I actually chose not to bring up, since it's waaay more abrasive. We would have to switch from the arguments to the motivation that drives those arguments. And not everybody that criticizes this field will necessarily do it as a defense mechanism. But, yes, some do. And some criticize it because they can't comprehend in any depth their own psychological experience, so they have chosen to ignore it. But, by mentioning this we are at risk of being accused of terrorism...

Quoting Ocean: As opposed to this example [Hitchens, Dawkins religion], when the same applies to social siences/psychology, I question how well-informed its critics are. There may be a superficial understanding of the field, but in my opinion, that's not enough.

Agree that a lot of carping comes from those without deep understanding. Again, though, this is hardly unique to the social sciences. Look at almost all critics of evolution, geology, statistics, quantum theory, and the LHC, just to name five.

In the same way that science has made some modifications, say for astronomy, since the observable phenomena being studied can't be reproduced experimentally, I would expect some modifications to be granted when we study psychological phenomena.

Granted, not that many experiments can be run in astronomy. But the observations are reproducible, the occasional transient event aside. You can observe something in the sky, describe where it is and what you did to see it, and anyone else with sufficient training and equipment can do it, too. Also, astronomy and its related fields can make precise testable predictions.

I'm very specifically talking about psychological phenomena which is not directly observable by others. It relies on self report. This has traditionally been one of the major objections to psychology as

Quoting bjkeefe: Granted, not that many experiments can be run in astronomy. But the observations are reproducible, the occasional transient event aside. You can observe something in the sky, describe where it is and what you did to see it, and anyone else with sufficient training and equipment can do it, too. Also, astronomy and its related fields can make precise testable predictions.

Brendan, of course, the modifications made for astronomy are rational, and I'm not suggesting they invalidate the discipline. I'm suggesting to be equally open to modifications that would be required to study what goes on inside your head and no one else can see, unless you tell them. And I'm not talking about your head, really. I wouldn't go there...

It's certainly objective that someone reports something. I'm a little skeptical about how objective this can be beyond that, given how many ways we have of fooling ourselves. But I'm hardly an expert in the field.

Yes, the issue is how much objectivity to attach to what someone reports. There are strategies to deal with some of that, such as testing validity and reliability. But you don't have direct access to the phenomena from outside.

I suppose you could

As far as I can humanly understand, Astronomy "experiments" are only observational with all the logical problems associated with that approach. It would be great if we could arrange for some galaxial collision and then observe and measure what happens, but we can only do it as some form of mental exercise (imagination?).

Quoting SkepticDoc: As far as I can humanly understand, Astronomy "experiments" are only observational with all the logical problems associated with that approach.

It would be great if we could arrange for some galaxial collision and then observe and measure what happens, but we can only do it as some form of mental exercise (imagination?).

I had a talk with the FSM about whether something could be arranged...

Quoting Wonderment: Ho-hum. Another fantastic Science Saturday.

Every time John discusses violence and war I make the same suggestion, so here goes again:

Get someone like Gene Sharp or Jamila Raqib of the Albert Einstein Institution to discuss nonviolent conflict resolution.

The debate about the history of violence is wonderful, but we don't have to resolve the issues raised by Steven Pinker, Fran de Waal, Wrangham and Brian Ferguson in order to address how to reduce violence and promote peace now.

D’accord!

Quoting AemJeff: I had a talk with the FSM about whether something could be arranged...

Awesome! So, you do talk to her, don't you? Does she get back to you? Oh, we'll leave that conversation for the party...

Quoting AemJeff: I had a talk with the FSM about whether something could be arranged...

How can be sure that they are going to collide? Can you arrange for acceleration of time so we don't have to wait so long for the light to arrive? Do we have to sacrifice some goats or chickens? Is the FSM gluten-free? Are the meatballs vegetarian?

Quoting Ocean: Awesome!

So, you do talk to her, don't you?

Does she get back to you?

Oh, we'll leave that conversation for the party...

Shh! Careful what you say! She's very shy, you know.

Quoting SkepticDoc: How can be sure that they are going to collide?

Can you arrange for acceleration of time so we don't have to wait so long for the light to arrive?

Do we have to sacrifice some goats or chickens?

Is the FSM gluten-free? Are the meatballs vegetarian?

In order: We can't. Nope. Absolutely not recommended for those afflicted with celiac. (Unless they're also skeptical about their condition.) Only if we don't want beef. Not a chance.

Quoting AemJeff: Shh! Careful what you say! She's very shy, you know.

Shy? Not the one I know...

Quoting bjkeefe: I didn't mean anything pejorative by saying that understanding could be obtained through the arts, just to be sure you understood.

I suppose you could say there are limitations inherent in the scientific method. Another way to say it, though, would be say that the scientific method imposes constraints. So, at the moment, it's hard to say that some fields of study can be said to be fully scientific. It doesn't mean they're inherently less deserving of respect, just that they're not there (yet). They may eventually get there, or we may broaden our definition of what is meant by science, or we may decide that it makes the most sense not to force a square peg into a round hole, and define a new area to encompass them that is neither the sciences nor the humanities.

Just came across something that recalled this discussion: cliodynamics. Worth a look.

No, I have not read Bruno Latour. Secondly, I'm a political junkie, so I've concentrated on political science, economics, international relations, and comparative politics. I've also concentrated on history. I'm most comfortable dealing with documents and testimony. I've also read in religion, ethics, philosophy of language, and, in grad studies, sociology as a part of comparative politics. But, aside from a certain number of thinkers cross-listed between political science and sociology and anthropology, I haven't made a concerted study of those disciplines. As someone who lives in a foreign nation, this preference for documents is reinforced more every day. I have a special animus for those who use culture as a starting point to understand political disputes because of my experiences. I want fungible evidence that will end an argument, and reserve endless disputes for religious discussions. Perhaps modern people would discuss anthropology or sociology instead of religion, but I just prefer the satisfaction of solving political and international problems most people can grasp instead of spinning cogs over a conundrum no one but a professor seeking to justify tenure would want to exploit. Ferguson's presentation is interesting as it affects a practical purpose: how should states disagree?

...we have no clear definition of "war". Can what pre-tribal societies engaged be described as war? I think conflating organized violence and war is a conceptual problem.

It seems to me that you're making a distinction that would be awfully hard to back up. Whether what's being discussed is spears in the jungle or formal conflict between modern states, or probably even dominance games between adolescent girls, there's a lot more in common than not.

Perhaps here this discussion went off the rails. I like to stay close to the text, but if Ferguson is a "Rousseauian", then only sovereign states war with each other. "Conflict" exists on other levels, but perhaps this is what grits-n-gravy wants. Humans were not "pacific", just not organized into a certain social organization similar to what we can call "military". AemJeff is making another argument, but not Rousseauian. Actually, AemJeff might be more Hobbesian, because for Hobbes (and Locke) humans in a state of nature exist in a state of war. But, Rousseau argued that in the state of nature, humans did not war, that is as citizens of states engaged in warfare. What Ferguson has to find is not evidence of

The disciplinary problem is part of this, indeed. I reach certain conclusions because I practice certain methodologies. All propositions do not carry equal weight, whether they be scientific or not. Those answers I have found are more important to me than all the wisdom of the ancients. It's much simpler: Marx was no Marxist, and Rousseau would probably shriek at those who take his name for gospel. Perhaps, even me! I'm concerned about what people say and do. What they think is for God and their shrinks or therapy groups. But, if one uses Rousseau's name, one better try to listen to him, not just carry a label.

Quoting Baltimoron: The disciplinary problem is part of this, indeed. I reach certain conclusions because I practice certain methodologies. All propositions do not carry equal weight, whether they be scientific or not. Those answers I have found are more important to me than all the wisdom of the ancients.

I'm concerned about what people say and do. What they think is for God and their shrinks or therapy groups. But, if one uses Rousseau's name, one better try to listen to him, not just carry a label.

Balt, There are always reasons why we choose what we do. We all have preferences and areas of interest that some share and others don't. I can't understand your second paragraph above. You are saying you're not interested in what people think. But you say that after extensive exposition of different schools of thought. What people say and do is linked to what they think. You may choose to focus on behavior, but you can't deny where it comes from. Would you like to explain?

Quoting Baltimoron: Perhaps here this discussion went off the rails.

I like to stay close to the text, but if Ferguson is a "Rousseauian", then only sovereign states war with each other. "Conflict" exists on other levels, but perhaps this is what grits-n-gravy wants. Humans were not "pacific", just not organized into a certain social organization similar to what we can call "military".

AemJeff is making another argument, but not Rousseauian. Actually, AemJeff might be more Hobbesian, because for Hobbes (and Locke) humans in a state of nature exist in a state of war. But, Rousseau argued that in the state of nature, humans did not war, that is as citizens of states engaged in warfare.

What Ferguson has to find is not evidence of conflict, but evidence that as citizens of states, non-European humans went to war.

I'm definitely a Hobbesian, no question. But my post was just a point about definitions and skepticism about the usefulness of the distinction I was responding to.

Quoting Baltimoron: Perhaps here this discussion went off the rails.

I like to stay close to the text, but if Ferguson is a "Rousseauian", then only sovereign states war with each other. "Conflict" exists on other levels, but perhaps this is what grits-n-gravy wants. Humans were not "pacific", just not organized into a certain social organization similar to what we can call "military".

That's a good way of putting it.

very unique and informative, guys. thanks to you both

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: very unique and informative, guys. thanks to you both

Nooooooooooo! Please do not attach modifiers to the word unique. Something is either the only one of its kind or it's not. It's a binary state -- there are no degrees of uniqueness. --Language Nanny

Quoting bjkeefe: Nooooooooooo!

Please do not attach modifiers to the word unique. Something is either the only one of its kind or it's not. It's a binary state -- there are no degrees of uniqueness.

--Language Nanny

Brendan, Your comment is extremely unique... (This is called desensitization therapy.)

Quoting Ocean: Brendan,

Your comment is extremely unique...

(This is called desensitization therapy.)

You people are so quick to criticize, so eager to deny me my little obsessions.

Quoting bjkeefe: You people are so quick to criticize, so eager to deny me my little obsessions.

Folks just want you to be the most perfect Brendan you can be!

Quoting AemJeff: Folks just want you to be the most perfect Brendan you can be!

LOL! Talk about unrealistic expectations ...

Quoting AemJeff: Folks just want you to be the most perfect Brendan you can be!

Yeah... some people don't appreciate the hard work and support from their friends... sheesh!

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/141...6&out=00:32:08

NERD ALERT!
oh....my....god. i can't believe you actually chose to nitpick on the most innocuous comment i can possibly think of writing. seriously, brendan, what is wrong with you? please don't be such a huge nerd. i can tell you still don't like me but i definitely don't care. please go back to not responding to my very unique comments. even though he may be wrong, this guy sums it up pretty well:
http://sethoscope.net/spew/veryunique.html this is a great lesson folks, if you find yourself actually correcting grammar in throwaway forum comments posted at 1 a.m., you have hit rock bottom.

brian, people take the race/IQ thing seriously because IQ is mostly inherited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Heritability you can't study until you have an IQ of 140....you're born with that calculation power - that's why it's taken seriously.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: NERD ALERT!
oh....my....god. i can't believe you actually chose to nitpick on the most innocuous comment i can possibly think of writing. seriously, brendan, what is wrong with you? please don't be such a huge nerd.

Can't help it. Incorrect usage bugs me all out of proportion. I embrace my nerdliness. And, any time I actually give voice to it in a forum like this, it's partly tongue in cheek. So lighten up.

i can tell you still don't like me ...

You're wrong about that. I have no opinion in that regard. I don't know you well enough to say. I remember you used to post more frequently, but I don't remember anything from back then. Seems like you might be carrying a grudge, though. Sorry to hear that. You should let it go. Life's too short.

even though he may be wrong, this guy sums it up pretty well:
http://sethoscope.net/spew/veryunique.html

He makes an okay case, but I just don't see the need to argue for something he himself knows is considered an error. It's not as though there aren't plenty of other words to use, if he insists (you insist) on using a modifier in conjunction; e.g., rare, unusual, distinctive, notable, outstanding, and so on. Why can't we preserve a word that has a precise -- one

I don't buy it for a second. you are nuts. i'm pretty sure the lightening needs to come from the "comment nanny" or whatever.

the interviewer should just shut up and let Ferguson shred it up or plan two interviews. He doesn't let him elaborate enough to express the full points on a crucial subject. 1. Richard B. Lee shreds the argument on how civilization is "less violent" (note: homicide rates) than simple hunter-gatherers. you can find this in any of his ethnographic works for the Ju/'hoansi (pg 398 in The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society). 2. Douglas Fry's analysis of nomadic hunter-gatherers vs. complex hunter-gatherers/horticulturalists/agriculturalists destroys all of this in Beyond War. Ferguson references the book and its a mandatory read.