Reductivism, Fatalism and Sociobiology

ABSTRACT When does ‘reduction’ in the harmless sense of relating one science to another involve a sinister devaluing of the valuable? Only when the ‘reductive’ explanation is (1) treated as excluding others, and (2) so chosen as to make a moral point by illicit means. (1) is never legitimate; different kinds of explanation all have their place and do not compete. It is made to look plausible by (2), which can occur in many situations, but is usually called reduction only when it involves the physical sciences. Two different dangers follow—reduction to the unknown entities of physics is chilling, but fortunately seems to have no particular moral consequences. Biological reductions often sound less remote; e.g. when sociobiologists talk of people as ‘survival machines’ for genes. The trouble here is not ‘biological determinism’ but fatalism, with apparent moral consequences, namely, the endorsement of universal competition. This idea is bad biology, compounded by illicit rhetoric. Biology itself cannot be a threat. The biological causes of human behaviour, including those found by sociobiologists in their calmer moments, are perfectly proper material for the social sciences.     

Development of Friendship Networks as a Prevention Strategy in a University Megadorm

An environmentally oriented intervention was developed to reduce adjustment problems and feelings of loneliness and isolation among graduate student residents of a high-rise dormitory.     

A Field Study of Social Information Processing Mean Differences and Variance Differences

Previous tests of the effects of socially transmitted information have not provided strong support for a social information processing approach to the formation of work related attitudes and perceptions. This study proposes that the attention-focusing effects of social information should be evidenced by unequal response variance and not necessarily in the typically hypothesized between-group mean differences of previous investigations. Three separate assessments of informational influence on work environment perceptions were conducted on a sample of state government emloyees who were relocating to an open office environment. Predictions of smaller within-group variances for employees receiving environment-salient information were partially supported in the hypotheses tested. Comparison of variance versus mean differences suggests that mean differences alone may not be sufficient for detecting social information processing effects on stimulus perception and evaluation.