The Blank Slate, denialism, and the Noble Lie are still alive & well on the left, I see. "Whither the Blank Slate? A Report on the Reception of Evolutionary Biological Ideas among Sociological Theorists", Horowitz et al 2014 https://pdf.yt/d/XndsCHfyUUNe7pI5 / https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwh49kot0vwpu65/2014-horowitz.pdf / http://sci-hub.org/downloads/cd0e/10.1080@02732173.2014.947451.pdf; excerpts:
"Critics such as Stephen Pinker (2002) have popularized the notion that sociologists adhere dogmatically to a "blank slate" or cultural determinist view of the human mind and social behavior. This report assesses whether sociologists indeed ascribe to such a blank slate view. Drawing from a survey of 155 sociological theorists, we find the field about evenly divided over the applicability of evolutionary reasoning to a range of human tendencies. Although there are signs of a shift toward greater openness to evolutionary biological ideas, sociologists are least receptive to evolutionary accounts of human sex differences. Echoing earlier research, we find political identity to be a significant predictor of sociologists' receptiveness.
A wave of research in biology, psychology and neuroscience illustrates that neither the human brain nor human behavior generally should be understood as all-purpose clay (we will turn to this research below, though see Laland and Brown 2011 for a sweeping overview). Indeed, critics underline a variety of "built-in" psychological, cognitive, and even moral predispositions deeply rooted in humans' evolutionary heritage. Anthropological evidence reveals as well that beneath the rich diversity of human cultures are widespread social practices consistent with evolutionary explanation (e.g., Brown 1991; Kenrick et al. 2009). To critics both within the field and without, sociologists cannot afford to ignore the vast theoretical and empirical advances in evolutionary science.
In her sweeping chronicle of the controversy, Segerstra ̊le (2000) shows how many of the sociobiology's staunchest critics engaged in what she refers to as "moral reading." That is, they extracted from sociobiological texts their most nefarious political implications (if not their authors' hidden motives). The result was widespread charges of political bias, genetic determinism, and reductionism. In the view of critics, sociobiological reasoning serves to justify social hierarchies (wittingly or otherwise) by reducing complex, emergent phenomena to presumably underlying genetic bases. Hence Rose (1979:160) would write that the struggle for a better world without famine or war runs into sociobiology's "hard-nosed realism." "What is, is what must be. It is only human nature. Offered a vision of Utopia, the realist defenders of the status quo substitute sociobiology."
Stephen Sanderson and colleagues carried out surveys of sociologists in the 90s that bear in part on their attitudes toward evolutionary biology (Sanderson and Ellis 1992; Lord and Sanderson 1999). Of 168 sociologists surveyed by Sanderson and Ellis (1992), only 2.5% identify sociobiology as a primary or secondary theoretical perspective in their work. That number dropped to 1.9% in a later survey of 375 sociological theorists surveyed by Lord and Sanderson (1999). Although both studies address the larger question of fragmentation in the field, each reveals useful data on the correlates of sociologists' receptiveness to sociobiology. The overriding variable in each case is political ideology. Both surveys find political outlook to be the best predictor of acceptance or rejection of evolutionary theory, with radicals being the most highly anti-biological. Perhaps surprisingly, gender is not significantly related in either study to respondents' receptiveness. Lord and Sanderson do find, however, that women are significantly less likely than men to acknowledge that sociobiology has made at least a modest contribution to the field.
The Sanderson and Ellis survey is particularly useful in highlighting sociologists' rejection of the role of genes as a major influence in shaping human behavior. They find that sociologists view biology as playing a very small role in a range of human behaviors, including gender differences in occupational interests, sexual orientation, criminal behavior, nurturance, and more. Indeed, more than half of their sample attributes 15 percent or less of the variation in such behaviors to biological causes (Sanderson and Ellis 1992:26).
A related indicator of sociologists' aloofness to evolutionary science is their antiquated characterizations of sociobiology in introductory textbooks. Machalek and Martin (2004) examine the 20 best-selling introductory sociology books in the United States. They find that of the 14 that discuss sociobiology at all, the textbook authors characterize the field as mired in reductionism and genetic determinism. People appear as little more than "automatons" propelled to act rigidly by their genes and impervious to cultural context (458). The textbook authors evince no awareness of the current state of sociobiological inquiry. They fail to discuss the overwhelming consensus that human behavior is shaped by a complex interaction between multiple genes and the social environment. Lacking such basic concepts as "epigenesis," "gene ensembles," and the "norm of reaction," sociologists present an inexcusable "straw man" given decades of advances in sociobiological theory and research (458-459).
Given the prior findings, our working hypothesis as we developed our own questionnaire was that sociologists would tend to reject sociobiology and that political outlook would be the best predictor. Our speculation was reinforced in part by our review of sociology theory books published from 2000-2011. Of the 18 books we could find with a contemporary theory focus or component, two covered sociobiology or evolutionary psychology (Johnson 2008; Turner 2006), while 16 did not (Adams and Sydie 2002; Allan 2006; Andersen and Kaspersen 2000; Applerouth 2010; Baert and de Silva 2010; Calhoun 2002; Delanty 2006; Applerouth and Desfor Edles 2007; Elliott 2009; Flecha, Puivert, and Gomez 2003; Harrington 2005; Mann 2007; Reed 2006; Ritzer 2007, 2009; and Ritzer and Smart 2001). In other words, we found that most students will not encounter sociobiology in their standard theory textbooks. It is reasonable to infer that if sociologists do not find sociobiology to be significant enough to merit discussion in a theory text, it is unlikely that they lend much credence to evolutionary explanations of human behavior.
Following Lord and Sanderson (1999), we have confined our study to sociological theorists rather than sociologists in general. We found 613 sociology professors listed as specialists in theory in the 2010 ASA Guide to Graduate Departments of Sociology. We removed 70 names from the original list due to repetitions and inaccessible or invalid e-mails (including those who were deceased), for a revised list of 543 professors. After an initial e-mail survey and follow-up in summer 2012, we obtained 155 usable surveys, for a 29% response rate....Eighty-six are Full Professors (62.8%), 33 are Associate Professors (24.1%), and 18 are Assistant Professors (13.1%).
1. Although the environment affects the range of one's intellectual development, some people are born genetically with more intellectual potential than others: plausible 81%, undecided 9.7%, implausible 9.1%
2. Sexual orientation has biological roots: 70/20/9
3. Observed differences between women and men in such skills as communication and spatial reasoning are linked to biological differences in female and male brains: 43/22/35
Yet as can be seen, the vast majority (82.1%) of respondents accept the plausibility of genetic roots to intellectual differences. Given the comments we received on this question, it appears that at least some of those who were undecided or found the idea of a biological intelligence implausible (18.8%) were considering multifaceted aspects of intelligence beyond abstract reasoning (e.g., aesthetic, social, etc.), as well as varying, culturally-specific constructions of "intelligence." We would respond, however, that an interactive view of biological and societal influences on intelligence gives weight to each (even if precise quantification is not possible). Moreover, we imagine that doubters on this issue did not have in mind Down Syndrome, Martin-Bell, or other genetic conditions resulting in intellectual disabilities.
Turning to sexual orientation, we again see a strong majority of sociologists (70.2%) affirming the plausibility of biological roots. A couple of respondents objected to the framing of the question, as it excluded environmental influences. One respondent wrote, "The items were sometimes phrased in too simplistic a form, i.e., 'has biological roots,' that I had to disagree, since biological causes cannot be isolated from social=cultural environmental factors." 8 We did in fact use the language of roots to exclude cultural influences on sexual orientation. It appears, in any case, that the large majority of sociologists, with whom we agree, affirm the plausibility of a biological basis for sexual orientation. Moreover, sociologists appear to have shifted substantially on this question since Sanderson and Ellis' 1992 survey. Sanderson and Ellis found that sociologists attributed only 26.2% of people's sexual orientations to biological factors (including genetic, natal, and nonsocial postnatal influences). With only 9.3% of our respondents denying the plausibility of biological roots, it appears that sociologists are much more open to the role of biology in shaping sexual orientation today...Sociologists' responses are somewhat surprising given the substantial body of literature demonstrating the implications of brain differences by sex for cognitive abilities (see Halpern 2011 for a solid overview of the literature). 9 We cannot be certain whether sociologists' biological skepticism on this question is due to simple ignorance of the research, or an ideological ("blank slate") opposition, or perhaps ignorance borne of ideological opposition.
- Taste for Fats/Sugars: 60/20
- Fear of Snakes/Spiders: 50/28
- Beauty as Fitness Indicator: 47/29
- Sexual Jealousy: 44/27
- Male Promiscuity: 36/38
- Male Violent Criminality: 32/40
- Male Pornography Use: 27/50
- Veiling/Virginity: 23/53
...It is immediately apparent that substantial percentages of sociologists accept the plausibility of evolutionary accounts for several human tendencies, including just under 60% with regard to people's taste for fats and sugars. On the other side of the coin, however, this still leaves a majority of sociologists unwilling to acknowledge even the plausibility of evolutionary explanations for seven of the eight behaviors. Why the reluctance?
Our presumption regarding sociologists' blank slate standpoint is bolstered by the most salient feature of Table 3: the relevance of the topic of sex differences to respondents' perceptions. Note that the four questions that specifically address behavioral differences between the sexes scored the lowest in terms of the "plausibility of a significant evolutionary component." It is plain that sociological theorists are most inclined to reject evolutionary reasoning when it is employed to explain behavioral differences between women and men. We see no other interpretation for this variation in responses than political outlook. Why would natural selection be limited to feeding behavior or animal phobias, but not to a range of emotions bearing on human sexuality? We do not aim in this report to validate evolutionary accounts writ large. Yet it is telling that so few sociologists acknowledge the plausibility of an evolutionary biological component for such behaviors as men's use of pornography (27.1%) or their desire to control their partners' sexuality (22.1%). Our questions, after all, do not preclude the role of culture, as revealed by our stress on biology as a component of behavior.
...Indeed, a few expressed their worries openly-that recognition of biological difference would undermine efforts to bring about social justice and equality. Consider the following comments:
"By emphasizing hard wiring due to evolution, there is an implicit acceptance of the behavior as if there is nothing or very little that can be done to alter the behavior or as if any such attempts are doomed and misguided. There is no incentive to consider the possibility of altering social environments to reduce the likelihood of fighting, or bullying, or raping, or veiling=segregating women, etc." / "This way of posing the issue might be unproductive. For me, the more important question is the kind of political possibilities and the ethical imperatives the two oppositional perspectives (sociobiology vs. cultural determinists) make available. The cultural determinist view offers more progressive possibilities alive to issues of social justice, while the biological determinist view undermines human agency and is most often enlisted to justify hierarchy." / "Biological history is no excuse for violating norms or allowing injustice because humans have choice and are responsible."
We constructed our dependent variable by subjecting survey questions 1-8 to principal components analysis to reduce them to a single indicator reflecting how plausible the respondent finds evolutionary explanations to be. One factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1 emerged, and this factor accounts for 57.6% of the variation among respondents on these eight items....Respondents were also asked to self-identify with respect to their political identities. "Conservative," "moderate," "liberal," and "radical" were offered as independent yes or no items, and a composite was constructed based on the responses to these political items...Table 5 illustrates our findings, including regression coefficients, standard errors, t-scores and p values. Like Sanderson and Ellis (1992), our results suggest no significant effect from gender on perceptions of the plausibility of evolutionary accounts. Nor was age of respondent significant. However, political outlook was a significant predictor, as expected. Our "radicalism" variable takes a negative coefficient (-.227; p < .05), suggesting an inverse relationship between radicalism and perceived plausibility of evolutionary biological accounts...We arrive at the conclusion, hence, that the theorists least inclined to find evolutionary accounts plausible are those who identify as politically radical and those who examine the social world principally through a feminist theoretical lens. This finding would hardly surprise sociology's critics."
"Critics such as Stephen Pinker (2002) have popularized the notion that sociologists adhere dogmatically to a "blank slate" or cultural determinist view of the human mind and social behavior. This report assesses whether sociologists indeed ascribe to such a blank slate view. Drawing from a survey of 155 sociological theorists, we find the field about evenly divided over the applicability of evolutionary reasoning to a range of human tendencies. Although there are signs of a shift toward greater openness to evolutionary biological ideas, sociologists are least receptive to evolutionary accounts of human sex differences. Echoing earlier research, we find political identity to be a significant predictor of sociologists' receptiveness.
A wave of research in biology, psychology and neuroscience illustrates that neither the human brain nor human behavior generally should be understood as all-purpose clay (we will turn to this research below, though see Laland and Brown 2011 for a sweeping overview). Indeed, critics underline a variety of "built-in" psychological, cognitive, and even moral predispositions deeply rooted in humans' evolutionary heritage. Anthropological evidence reveals as well that beneath the rich diversity of human cultures are widespread social practices consistent with evolutionary explanation (e.g., Brown 1991; Kenrick et al. 2009). To critics both within the field and without, sociologists cannot afford to ignore the vast theoretical and empirical advances in evolutionary science.
In her sweeping chronicle of the controversy, Segerstra ̊le (2000) shows how many of the sociobiology's staunchest critics engaged in what she refers to as "moral reading." That is, they extracted from sociobiological texts their most nefarious political implications (if not their authors' hidden motives). The result was widespread charges of political bias, genetic determinism, and reductionism. In the view of critics, sociobiological reasoning serves to justify social hierarchies (wittingly or otherwise) by reducing complex, emergent phenomena to presumably underlying genetic bases. Hence Rose (1979:160) would write that the struggle for a better world without famine or war runs into sociobiology's "hard-nosed realism." "What is, is what must be. It is only human nature. Offered a vision of Utopia, the realist defenders of the status quo substitute sociobiology."
Stephen Sanderson and colleagues carried out surveys of sociologists in the 90s that bear in part on their attitudes toward evolutionary biology (Sanderson and Ellis 1992; Lord and Sanderson 1999). Of 168 sociologists surveyed by Sanderson and Ellis (1992), only 2.5% identify sociobiology as a primary or secondary theoretical perspective in their work. That number dropped to 1.9% in a later survey of 375 sociological theorists surveyed by Lord and Sanderson (1999). Although both studies address the larger question of fragmentation in the field, each reveals useful data on the correlates of sociologists' receptiveness to sociobiology. The overriding variable in each case is political ideology. Both surveys find political outlook to be the best predictor of acceptance or rejection of evolutionary theory, with radicals being the most highly anti-biological. Perhaps surprisingly, gender is not significantly related in either study to respondents' receptiveness. Lord and Sanderson do find, however, that women are significantly less likely than men to acknowledge that sociobiology has made at least a modest contribution to the field.
The Sanderson and Ellis survey is particularly useful in highlighting sociologists' rejection of the role of genes as a major influence in shaping human behavior. They find that sociologists view biology as playing a very small role in a range of human behaviors, including gender differences in occupational interests, sexual orientation, criminal behavior, nurturance, and more. Indeed, more than half of their sample attributes 15 percent or less of the variation in such behaviors to biological causes (Sanderson and Ellis 1992:26).
A related indicator of sociologists' aloofness to evolutionary science is their antiquated characterizations of sociobiology in introductory textbooks. Machalek and Martin (2004) examine the 20 best-selling introductory sociology books in the United States. They find that of the 14 that discuss sociobiology at all, the textbook authors characterize the field as mired in reductionism and genetic determinism. People appear as little more than "automatons" propelled to act rigidly by their genes and impervious to cultural context (458). The textbook authors evince no awareness of the current state of sociobiological inquiry. They fail to discuss the overwhelming consensus that human behavior is shaped by a complex interaction between multiple genes and the social environment. Lacking such basic concepts as "epigenesis," "gene ensembles," and the "norm of reaction," sociologists present an inexcusable "straw man" given decades of advances in sociobiological theory and research (458-459).
Given the prior findings, our working hypothesis as we developed our own questionnaire was that sociologists would tend to reject sociobiology and that political outlook would be the best predictor. Our speculation was reinforced in part by our review of sociology theory books published from 2000-2011. Of the 18 books we could find with a contemporary theory focus or component, two covered sociobiology or evolutionary psychology (Johnson 2008; Turner 2006), while 16 did not (Adams and Sydie 2002; Allan 2006; Andersen and Kaspersen 2000; Applerouth 2010; Baert and de Silva 2010; Calhoun 2002; Delanty 2006; Applerouth and Desfor Edles 2007; Elliott 2009; Flecha, Puivert, and Gomez 2003; Harrington 2005; Mann 2007; Reed 2006; Ritzer 2007, 2009; and Ritzer and Smart 2001). In other words, we found that most students will not encounter sociobiology in their standard theory textbooks. It is reasonable to infer that if sociologists do not find sociobiology to be significant enough to merit discussion in a theory text, it is unlikely that they lend much credence to evolutionary explanations of human behavior.
Following Lord and Sanderson (1999), we have confined our study to sociological theorists rather than sociologists in general. We found 613 sociology professors listed as specialists in theory in the 2010 ASA Guide to Graduate Departments of Sociology. We removed 70 names from the original list due to repetitions and inaccessible or invalid e-mails (including those who were deceased), for a revised list of 543 professors. After an initial e-mail survey and follow-up in summer 2012, we obtained 155 usable surveys, for a 29% response rate....Eighty-six are Full Professors (62.8%), 33 are Associate Professors (24.1%), and 18 are Assistant Professors (13.1%).
1. Although the environment affects the range of one's intellectual development, some people are born genetically with more intellectual potential than others: plausible 81%, undecided 9.7%, implausible 9.1%
2. Sexual orientation has biological roots: 70/20/9
3. Observed differences between women and men in such skills as communication and spatial reasoning are linked to biological differences in female and male brains: 43/22/35
Yet as can be seen, the vast majority (82.1%) of respondents accept the plausibility of genetic roots to intellectual differences. Given the comments we received on this question, it appears that at least some of those who were undecided or found the idea of a biological intelligence implausible (18.8%) were considering multifaceted aspects of intelligence beyond abstract reasoning (e.g., aesthetic, social, etc.), as well as varying, culturally-specific constructions of "intelligence." We would respond, however, that an interactive view of biological and societal influences on intelligence gives weight to each (even if precise quantification is not possible). Moreover, we imagine that doubters on this issue did not have in mind Down Syndrome, Martin-Bell, or other genetic conditions resulting in intellectual disabilities.
Turning to sexual orientation, we again see a strong majority of sociologists (70.2%) affirming the plausibility of biological roots. A couple of respondents objected to the framing of the question, as it excluded environmental influences. One respondent wrote, "The items were sometimes phrased in too simplistic a form, i.e., 'has biological roots,' that I had to disagree, since biological causes cannot be isolated from social=cultural environmental factors." 8 We did in fact use the language of roots to exclude cultural influences on sexual orientation. It appears, in any case, that the large majority of sociologists, with whom we agree, affirm the plausibility of a biological basis for sexual orientation. Moreover, sociologists appear to have shifted substantially on this question since Sanderson and Ellis' 1992 survey. Sanderson and Ellis found that sociologists attributed only 26.2% of people's sexual orientations to biological factors (including genetic, natal, and nonsocial postnatal influences). With only 9.3% of our respondents denying the plausibility of biological roots, it appears that sociologists are much more open to the role of biology in shaping sexual orientation today...Sociologists' responses are somewhat surprising given the substantial body of literature demonstrating the implications of brain differences by sex for cognitive abilities (see Halpern 2011 for a solid overview of the literature). 9 We cannot be certain whether sociologists' biological skepticism on this question is due to simple ignorance of the research, or an ideological ("blank slate") opposition, or perhaps ignorance borne of ideological opposition.
- Taste for Fats/Sugars: 60/20
- Fear of Snakes/Spiders: 50/28
- Beauty as Fitness Indicator: 47/29
- Sexual Jealousy: 44/27
- Male Promiscuity: 36/38
- Male Violent Criminality: 32/40
- Male Pornography Use: 27/50
- Veiling/Virginity: 23/53
...It is immediately apparent that substantial percentages of sociologists accept the plausibility of evolutionary accounts for several human tendencies, including just under 60% with regard to people's taste for fats and sugars. On the other side of the coin, however, this still leaves a majority of sociologists unwilling to acknowledge even the plausibility of evolutionary explanations for seven of the eight behaviors. Why the reluctance?
Our presumption regarding sociologists' blank slate standpoint is bolstered by the most salient feature of Table 3: the relevance of the topic of sex differences to respondents' perceptions. Note that the four questions that specifically address behavioral differences between the sexes scored the lowest in terms of the "plausibility of a significant evolutionary component." It is plain that sociological theorists are most inclined to reject evolutionary reasoning when it is employed to explain behavioral differences between women and men. We see no other interpretation for this variation in responses than political outlook. Why would natural selection be limited to feeding behavior or animal phobias, but not to a range of emotions bearing on human sexuality? We do not aim in this report to validate evolutionary accounts writ large. Yet it is telling that so few sociologists acknowledge the plausibility of an evolutionary biological component for such behaviors as men's use of pornography (27.1%) or their desire to control their partners' sexuality (22.1%). Our questions, after all, do not preclude the role of culture, as revealed by our stress on biology as a component of behavior.
...Indeed, a few expressed their worries openly-that recognition of biological difference would undermine efforts to bring about social justice and equality. Consider the following comments:
"By emphasizing hard wiring due to evolution, there is an implicit acceptance of the behavior as if there is nothing or very little that can be done to alter the behavior or as if any such attempts are doomed and misguided. There is no incentive to consider the possibility of altering social environments to reduce the likelihood of fighting, or bullying, or raping, or veiling=segregating women, etc." / "This way of posing the issue might be unproductive. For me, the more important question is the kind of political possibilities and the ethical imperatives the two oppositional perspectives (sociobiology vs. cultural determinists) make available. The cultural determinist view offers more progressive possibilities alive to issues of social justice, while the biological determinist view undermines human agency and is most often enlisted to justify hierarchy." / "Biological history is no excuse for violating norms or allowing injustice because humans have choice and are responsible."
We constructed our dependent variable by subjecting survey questions 1-8 to principal components analysis to reduce them to a single indicator reflecting how plausible the respondent finds evolutionary explanations to be. One factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1 emerged, and this factor accounts for 57.6% of the variation among respondents on these eight items....Respondents were also asked to self-identify with respect to their political identities. "Conservative," "moderate," "liberal," and "radical" were offered as independent yes or no items, and a composite was constructed based on the responses to these political items...Table 5 illustrates our findings, including regression coefficients, standard errors, t-scores and p values. Like Sanderson and Ellis (1992), our results suggest no significant effect from gender on perceptions of the plausibility of evolutionary accounts. Nor was age of respondent significant. However, political outlook was a significant predictor, as expected. Our "radicalism" variable takes a negative coefficient (-.227; p < .05), suggesting an inverse relationship between radicalism and perceived plausibility of evolutionary biological accounts...We arrive at the conclusion, hence, that the theorists least inclined to find evolutionary accounts plausible are those who identify as politically radical and those who examine the social world principally through a feminist theoretical lens. This finding would hardly surprise sociology's critics."