Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Clement Attlee played right half for Fleet Town and Albert Camus played in goal for Algeria, not exactly Marxists though.
I think this is one of the most poorly argued research papers I have seen in many years. It draws huge conclusions from very small data sets. Of 12 references, 3 are to the authors own works and one is a reference to Larry Hagman’s view on the use of LSD!
Hardly sound academic grounds on which to build an argument.
It’s opening gambit is:
“I want to describe what I think is a fundamental truth about the individual bio-psychology of social animals, including humans.”
So, on the basis of research carried out on the effectiveness of SRIs (fluoxitine or Prozac to the uninitiated) in increasing cooperativeness amongst humans and a study of primates which actually states as part of its conclusion:
“The literature reviewed raises the obvious question: Are these findings relevant to humans? Initially, they seem to be of minimal relevance. Humans are not hierarchical in the linear, uni dimensional manner of many species. For example, humans belong to multiple hierarchies and tend to value most the one in which they rank highest (for example, a low prestige employee who most values his role as a deacon in his church). Furthermore, the existence of internal standards makes humans less subject to the psychological consequences of rank.”
Rancourt, however, based on this flimsy evidence, has developed a fundamental truth about all social animals!
So, just to be clear, this theory covers all animals and that means humans, chimps, ants, bees, sea otters, starlings, meerkats, etc.
From this weak evidence base he then jumps to the conclusion that
“This knowledge implies that the metabolic biochemistry of dominance locks us in. No socialism theory that presumes altruistic cooperation as its organizing principle can ever work. Non-hierarchical anarchism and its libertarian cousin are useful conceptual end-points that can never be sustainably achieved.”
Quite how this “knowledge” implies a biochemistry of dominance which “locks us in” is not explained. Why, even if such an implication could be drawn (which it can’t), this would mean that a theory of socialism which is based on altruistic cooperation can never work, is similarly lacking in explanation. Not only that, the basis of socialism is not altruistic cooperation, but rather cooperation for the benefit of all, a very different concept.
So if altruistic cooperation cannot be achieved, how does our hero explain the vast amount of altruistic cooperation which goes on every day as part of human society, even in the antagonistic world of capitalism. This behaviour ranges from giving up seats to older people on buses through to the organisation of food banks, volunteers running sports clubs for children, unpaid trades union reps, etc, etc. I recently took part in a Christmas day event for people who would be lonely and isolated on Christmas day, we had to close the book to volunteers in November, there were that many people who wanted to altruistically cooperate!
As to the influence of serotonin, this article overstates the influence of one neurotransmitter, there is no mention for instance of oxtocin. Looking at this effect of this neurotransmitter in the following study seems to demonstrate the opposite of Rancourt’s “theory”:
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ant/wpaper/2008014.html
One of the interesting things about Oxytocin is the relationship between oxytocin and attachment experiences. Typically children who experience a warm nurturing cooperative care giver, during their early years, produce higher levels of oxytocin, which increases the growth and development of the brain. In contrast those who experience neglect and poor attachment tend to have smaller less well developed brains by the age of three years old:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/two-brains-belong-three-year-olds-one-much-bigger/
As attachment experience is a social experience and as social experiences are undoubtedly linked to the economic and social structure in which they are experienced, it is likely that children growing up in a socially cooperative society would be likely to experienced better attachments, that they would be more likely to raise children that experienced better attachments. i.e. Cooperation breeds cooperation and changes the physical structure of the brains with which we experience our social world. Given them above, Rancourt’s theory of a “fundamental truth about the individual bio-psychology of social animals, including humans” sounds highly preposterous.
As for Rancourt’s paper D+ would probably be a very generous mark.
Hi Vin
Good to hear from you, Marra. Hope you and your’s are well and healthy, Keep a’had bonny lad and give us a bell sometime.
Tim
p.s N’divvent fesh yersell aboot the Mackems, tha deein canny
It’s getting closer to this all of the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four
What about us poor Geordies. People around here don’t put their coat on until it’s minus 15. People get heatstroke at minus 5. And all the poor people of Sunderland, they’re waiting for hell to freeze over so they can get back in the Premiership
Sorry for the tardiness of my reply, been to the pub to watch the Mighty Magpies triumph for the third time in a row!
More than happy to discuss the work of Vygotsky. Very interesting guy on lots of levels.
Do you want to start a new thread when you have your copy?
Without commenting too much on the pros and cons, it is amazing that outlets like the BBC do not appear to understand the difference between the Council of Europe and the EU and the difference between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice
“out of interest what should we focus our message on?”
Hmm that’s an interesting question, maybe spreading Socialist ideas?
L Bird
On a more conciliatory note, I’m not sure if you are aware of Vygotsky and his work, but if not I though if your not it would interest you.
Here is a link to pretty good website, although whilst they do acknowledge the Marxist element of Vygotsky’s theoretical approach, they don’t really apply it to the material he produced. He is much better understood through his original work, although I cannot find any links to his work.
Cheers
T
Nice to see you are following your historical pattern and not answering the questions put to you. In the hope of a straight answer:
As you have pointed out on several occasions, I am as thick as two short Planck’s Constants. In your proposed system having science under common ownership do I get to vote on theories of areas of science which I have no particular interest or knowledge?
You state:
“He doesn’t address the issue of ‘matter’ as the ideological form that ‘private property’ takes within the physics of class societies, since the Ancient Greek thinkers,”
Can you please expand on this statement, can you point to exact texts and references where any other person has come to a similar conclusion.
also
“or that ‘matter’ has been long regarded as simply another name for ‘god’,”
If matter has long been regarded as another name of god, it should be fairly easy for you to point out examples of this taking place.
L Bird
I have made a political response, for that see the thread that I set up. I notice that you have studiously ignored the questions posed, as per usual, and have carried out your usual smoke and mirrors response.
So why don’t you answer the political question posed on the thread I started? I can only assume you are frightened that the fragility of the position you put forward will be exposed once again.
Why not go to the thread set up for discussion of your ideas and answer the questions posed. I can only assume that if you don’t then it is because you’re frightened of the exposure of your ideas to criticism by class conscious members of the working class?
