Roger, just because it's wrong doesn't mean they're not right.

[Bu🤠ns]

I was referring to the monkey inclination.

[Kai]

"DR. WILSON, YOU'RE ALL WET!"

Notwithstanding the fact having water poured on his head is a violation of Dr. Wilson's rights, it's not really fair to say that he was totally villainized.  He's still a very important figure in sociobiology today.  But it's one thing to say that kin selection is important in evolution, it is another thing to say it is responsible in whole or in part for the phenomenon known as racism.  It may be that certain people are made uncomfortable by the idea that racism is "natural" but it is unfair to say that all opponents of of EO Wilson are motivated by such unscientific concerns.  The real problem with Wilson's sociobiology is that it is fraught with bad science.  

Wilson sees "behavior and social structure as 'organs,'—extensions of the genes that exist because of their superior adaptive value." In speaking of indoctrinability, for example, he asserts that "humans are absurdly easy to indoctrinate" and therefore "conformer genes" must exist. Likewise, Wilson speaks of the "genes favoring spite" and asserts that spite occurs because humans are intelligent and can fathom its selective advantages. Similar arguments apply to "homosexuality genes" and genes for "creativity, entrepreneurship, drive and mental stamina." But there is no evidence for the existence of such genes. Thus, for Wilson, what exists is adaptive, what is adaptive is good, therefore what exists is good. However, when Wilson is forced to deal with phenomena such as social unrest, his explanatory framework becomes amazingly elastic. Such behavior is capriciously dismissed with the explanation that it is maladaptive, and therefore has simply failed to evolve. Hence, social unrest may be due to the obsolescence of our moral codes, for as Wilson sees it we still operate with a "formalized code" as simple as that of "members of hunter-gatherer societies." Xenophobia represents a corresponding failure to keep pace with social evolution, our "intergroup responses...still crude and primitive."

This approach allows Wilson to confirm selectively certain contemporary behavior as adaptive and "natural" and thereby justify the present social order. The only basis for Wilson's definition of adaptive and maladaptive, however, is his own preferences. While he rejects the "advocacy approach" and claims scientific objectivity, Wilson reinforces his own speculations about a "human nature," i.e., that a great variety of human behavior is genetically determined, a position which does not follow from his evidence.

Read the whole article here.

Tip: The OP was not titled "Wilson is right, even if racism is wrong". The OP was titled "Just because it's wrong doesn't mean they're not right." In other words, I didn't make any claim about the status of Wilson's hypothesis, but rather that sensitivity drowns out any discussion of such issues in the first place. Another tip: when scientists have arguments over hypotheses, they don't generally drop water on each other's heads; they write angry criticisms to each other via peer reviewed journals. That infantile behavior was simply out of the sensitivity people have to discussing human issues at all. In other words, you not only missed the point but supported my own hypothesis.

What is this now, two for me, none for you? If you aren't going to follow the genre (IOW, this is an epistle, if you didn't notice) then I might as well ridicule you. After the brain in a vat/deus deceptor/evil daemon Cartesian discussion down in Or Kill Me, I really can't take anything you say seriously. "While the solipsist has made himself an impenetrable fortress, neither can he sally forth, so we shall leave him behind."

[LMNO]

IN THE NADS, KAI!  IN THE NADS!

[P3nT4gR4m]

"natural/against nature" is a pissweak argument in pretty much any context. Anyone pulls that shit on me I know I've won. Everything we do, everything that happens, is natural. We are of nature, ergo everything we do is of nature. The whole nature-point is fucking moot.

Anyone brings out that one in an argument with me and the conversation will go along the lines of:

"...because it's natural"

"Oh it's natural is it? So is killing your stepchildren so their fathers shit genes aren't passed on. Go ask a baboon if you don't believe me!"

[Richter]

"...because it's natural"

"SO IS POT!" -Irrate highschool oarswoman, upon being told stepping on poop was OK becuase "It's natural".

I agree with Kai on this.
Understanding WHY our brains seem predisposed to be prejudiced beliefs is not condoning them.  Wilson's mistake, is anything, was assuming his audience thought like he did.  Not knowing the guy, I'll never be certain, but I'd guess he's the sort who opperates with some level of self awareness / metacognition.  A rationale for a behavior isn't an excuse, then; it becomes a backwater relic of our monkey wiring to stay aware of an work around. 

It's a good example and good reading though.  Anytime this comes up in conversation, I'll be addressing it with such caveats.   

[Kai]

A rationale for a behavior isn't an excuse, then; it becomes a backwater relic of our monkey wiring to stay aware of an work around.

Exactly. Especially the bolded part. Science works the same way; we can never remove the human element, or so Karl Popper suggested (and I agree), but we can be aware of such issues and attempt to work around them. Anything else is self deception.

[LMNO]

To circle this back to the MLA people, their summary dismissal of this place as Second Circuit, while they were obviously on Level Five made it clear that they consider some aspects of the human condition as "lesser" than others; furthermore, that they were aspects that could be overcome or dealt with in some way that they could lock in a closet and never have to deal with again, rather than recognizing the need to integrate all the levels together into one constantly shifting pattern.

[Richter]

It reminds me of the concept of mindfulness, and imperfect thought / speach / action from Buddhism.  If we've got the capacity to see our shortcomings, and work around them, then it's a shame not to.