Tangentially connect, I found this through A&L Daily.

Bot

____________________________________

The Social Responsibility in Teaching Sociobiology

By DAVID P. BARASH

Socrates was made to drink hemlock for having "corrupted the youth of Athens." Is sociobiology or — as it is more commonly called these days — "evolutionary psychology" similarly corrupting? Although the study of evolution is, in my opinion, one of the most exciting and illuminating of all intellectual enterprises, there is at the same time, and not just in my opinion, something dark about the implications of natural selection for our own behavior.

Should we revise Pink Floyd's anthem "Another Brick in the Wall" — with its chorus "No dark sarcasm in the classroom/Teachers leave them kids alone" — to "No dark sociobiology in the classroom"? To answer this, we need first to examine that purported darkness.

Basically, it's a matter of selfishness. For a long time, evolution was thought to operate "for the good of the species," a conception that had a number of pro-social implications; that may be one reason why "species benefit" was so widely accepted, and why its overthrow took so long and was so vigorously resisted. Thus, if evolution somehow cares about the benefit enjoyed by a species, or by any other group larger than the individual, then it makes sense for natural selection to favor actions that contribute positively to that larger whole, even at the expense of the individual in question. Doing good therefore becomes doubly right: not just ethically correct but also biologically appropriate. In a world motivated by concern for the group rather than the individual, altruism is to be expected, since it would be "only natural" for an individual to suffer costs — and to do so willingly — so long as other species members come out ahead as a result.

Then came the revolution. Beginning in the 1960s with a series of paradigm-shifting papers by William D. Hamilton, a notable book by George C. Williams (Adaptation and Natural Selection), and with further clarifications in the early 1970s, especially by Robert L. Trivers and John Maynard Smith, and magisterially summarized in Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology, the conceptual structure of modern evolutionary biology was changed — maybe not forever (it's a bit premature to conclude that), but into the foreseeable future. Sociobiology was born on the wings of this scientific paradigm shift, whose underlying manifesto holds that the evolutionary process works most effectively at the smallest unit: that of individuals and genes, rather than groups and species.

At first glance, none of this seems especially threatening. Moreover it has been liberating in the extreme, shedding new light on a wide range of animal and human social behavior. But at the same time, the individual- and gene-centered view of life offers, in a sense, a perspective that is profoundly selfish; hence Richard Dawkins's immensely influential book, The Selfish Gene. The basic idea has been so productive that it has rapidly become dogma: Living things compete with each other (more precisely, their constituent genes struggle with alternative copies) in a never-ending process of differential reproduction, using their bodies as vehicles, or tools, for achieving success. The result has been to validate a view of human motivations that seems to approve of personal selfishness while casting doubt on any self-abnegating actions, seeing a self-serving component behind any act, no matter how altruistic it might appear. Sociobiologists have thus become modern-day descendants of the cynical King Gama, from Gilbert and Sullivan's Princess Ida, who proudly announces his cynicism: "A charitable action I can skillfully dissect; And interested motives I'm delighted to detect."

Scientifically, such "detection" works. Ethically, however, it stinks: If the fundamental nature of living things — human beings included — is to joust endlessly with each other, each seeking to get ahead, then we're all mired in selfishness — a dark vision indeed.

More: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=xm3c4mgmb8b6fhkn54zhzwxfcgbzpjdl

I caught a bit of a show the other day about the language gene. Apparently, the mutation was so powerful that scientists theorize that every homo spiecies without it was wiped out within a few years.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Did the show talk at all about the differences between spoken and written language? It seems as though the same extinction is happening with spoken only languages. With all those Wycliffe Bible Translators seeking out cultures without written languages, creating a written version of the language so they can read the Bible, that within a couple of hundred years maximum, there wont be any societies left with spoken only languages.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Let's think about where MOST of us remember "seeing" the first time signage was being used. In my case, it was during an elementary-school presentation of "The Helen Keller Story" back in the early 60's.

What was the deal? Oh yah...deaf girl being "taught" to get along in an audible world.

Being taught by who? A non-deaf individual.

Now, does that mean signage was developed by an audible? Nope, not at all. Here's the point...

As parents, a VAST MAJORITY are audible. That's a given. When, as parents, we start TALKING to our BABIES, we look for a response from the infant. Get a response, nobody thinks anything of it (Except the parents - "My child's a genius!")

No response? "OMG! Our lives are ruined! Our baby's deaf! It came from your side of the family!" (Insert In-laws, wierd brother-in-law, strange-acting uncle for faulted family member...)

But there's where the "learning" starts...PARENTS trying to teach the child how to get along w/the audibles. If the parents have learned "sign" and they TRANSFER that knowledge onto the child, they're doing the job of communicating THEIR knowledge onto the child.

However, if the parents are too lazy, they "farm out" that teaching process to others, either by schooling/tutoring, or they fumble around (at the child's detriment) until the child either seeks compitent knowledge-givers (fat chance) or ends up fumbling around society until a "do-gooder" (Think Helen Keller's teacher) is able to "train" them in the proper techniques.

Kerry, your mention of Gauladet University is a good example of like-individuals seeking one another out and forming a "society" with similiar interests. But, I'm sure Gauladet didn't form over-night, with 1000's of deaf people suddenly showing up in a building and going "IT'S GAULADET TIME! BREAK IT DOWN!" It, like the signage language itself, was born out of a nessesity to communicate ideas in a proper learning enviroment. Obviously, deaf individuals weren't getting that from traditional, audible, facilities. Gauladet serves a particular group of people with a common bond.

It's a shame that the some of the students have now considered their "specialty" a birth-right so far in that if you're not at a certain level of "deaf-in," you're "definately" out. (Sounds like some frat-boys need to head over there and pound some PC-*SS.) I myself, have a fairly high level of deafness in my right ear (>80% at frequencies below 3.5KHz.). If I were at Gauladet, I would be highly insulted that a small, PC-brained, group of "kids" would kick out a "like" individual because they weren't "in" enough. Sounds a bit like a clique, eh? This is a sure case of the "tail wagging the dog." I would think that if you're deaf, you're deaf. Apparently, there's a level of deafness that can be defined and marketed. "I've been 100%, certifiably, deaf for over 25 years! Let me be your instructor!" I wonder how many of those "PC-babies" were brought up and taught by lesser-qualified people?

Anyways, the only thing I might disagree with is the comment about "...or by a couple of deaf kids in order to communicate with speakers..." If we go back and look at HOW we relate to our own children, that, in itself, will give us a better idea as to how language, both audible and signage, evolves.

JMO.

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

Nope it didn't. It wasn't specifically about languages, it was more about genes.

Hey burg, I taught my kid sign language before he could speak. He could do thank you (don't know where that went) milk, more, eat, before he was a year old. He's lost it now, I wonder what would have happened if we continued. Would he be considered... bilingual?

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Here' an interesting claim. Even though spoken language comes first in human development, once a person learns a written language, the written forms becomes the dominant form of language. I don't know how credible the position is and upon what evidence it is based but I can see how the predominance of vision in our species could result in this.

Written Language versus Spoken Language

By Charley Pein

After a person born, he or she learn spoken language before written language, so many linguists consider written language a written form of spoken language, which records the human sounds. However, after being built, written language becomes more stable than spoken language. It is because human rely on their eyes more than ears. Since spoken language and it written form represent the same meaning, it is necessary to find out which is deterministic and which is secondary. If this done, it will be a great help to education and learning.

Most knowledge human brain stores are from perception of eyes. As thinking deeper and deeper, a person will try to find answer from the sceneries in his brain, i.e. what they have seen. I mean a person will ultimately explain meanings by visual thinking. In fact, although human communicates to each other by speaking, as auditory thinking ability is much more limited than visual thinking, when he finds it difficult to express, he always start looking for written sentences stored in his brain. If a person doesn’t know written language, his thinking is purely auditory; he can only remember spoken language, although he can produce any sounds of the language, he don’t understand most meanings represented by written language.

Since human explain meaning mainly by visual thinking, as more and more meanings come out along with development of the society, spoken language becomes sound of written language, it seldom represent meaning, instead it get its meaning by corresponding to its written form. Ironically, in this sense, spoken language is spoken form of written language. This seems unnatural and hard to accept, for everybody learn language by hearing and speaking before he can walk, not to say write, how you can say he is reading something he never saw before!? To explain this, imagine a mother presents writings or prints with meaning to her child instead of speaking, after some time, the child will know written language before he can speak. Human begins with speaking because speaking is convenient and easier than writing, it doesn’t mean speaking determine writing. When a person grows up, written language determines most of what he speaks.

Knowing the relationship between spoken language and written language, i.e. written language determines spoken language, can help leaning knowledge and learning language. First and foremost, you should make certain you want to learn is knowledge, not language. Knowing about what a sentence means, i.e. what it corresponds in the real world, is much more important than knowing the writings and pronunciations. One sentence you must remember is: language is just a way for representing and exchanging knowledge or meaning.

Next thing is to read more texts possessing knowledge of your interest and make correspondences to the writing. Today, many prevalent methods play much attention to listening and speaking, while ignoring the connections between writing and knowledge, it is not surprising they make little effect. Although writing determines the meaning, knowing its pronunciation and being fluent in speaking can make you read more quickly, and increase you oral communication ability.

In a word, the main relationship between modern human spoken language and written language is simple — human uses writing to represent the real world, when they speak out the writing, it becomes spoken language.

Charley Pein

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Here's a summary of a book arguing for the evolutionary/hierarchical development of languages from spoken-written-math-science-computers

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Logan/Extended/Extended.html

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

You reminded me of what my daughter-out-law (DOL (Not married to my son)) did with my first grandson...she was doing the "mommy-sign" stuff with him when he was about 6 or 7 months old...he was responding to her, and evenually grandma's, queries about "food" - "wet" and a couple other items...

Again, it was the "audibles" communicating with, not a deaf, but a non-speech-developed, child.

My guess would be this: Jonathan (GS) grandson)) would be able to communicate with those that "knew" the "signs" and what those "signs" meant. Me? Until mom and grandma "showed" (or taught!) ME what was going on, I saw Johnathan's movements and they appeared to be random movements of a child, nothing more. Thank God he wasn't in my care alone when he was "signing" "wet" - he would have probably drowned!

I'm going to see if the DOL did the same with the other two GSs and find out if any GSs remember the "signs" from way-back-when.

Nice 'lil test, eh?

Geez! I sugar 'em up and send 'em home...now I'm messin' with their 'lil heads? WAIT! I do that already!
Hey, Jonathan, pull my finger!

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

"After a person born, he or she learn spoken language before written language, so many linguists consider written language a written form of spoken language, which records the human sounds. However, after being built, written language becomes more stable than spoken language. It is because human rely on their eyes more than ears."

Clearly, this is a superficial description. The primary difference between sound-symbols and written symbols is temporality. Sound-symbols are ephemeral. Written symbols are permanent, or at least of long duration. If we wish to go back and hear what Aunt Ruthie said about playing hide the salami, the best we can do is hope that several witnesses can testify to the hearing the same words. But if it is written, then the phrase is 'verbatim.'