Tom Wolfe on Richard Dawkins and Genetic Determinism

[terrypussypower]

Or in Tom Wolfes' case, Homo QuackQuack: Man Speaking Shit !

[TigerbythetailFilms]

Tom Wolfe is a fine southern novelist, why ask his opinion on science? How about asking a fish about climbing trees?

[JBeezie428]

hah these fools....when will people get that morality and free will are not things that "genetic determinism" has any impact on.

[sugarcanegray]

is it just me or did Tom Wolfe spend 2 minutes talking a fair bit actually saying nothing whatsoever?

[Easleytee]

Wolfe sounds like a dithering imbecile, in a desperate attempt to sound marginally relevant and intellectually coherent.

Regrettably, he failed on both accounts.

[Candidulus]

Tom Wolfe - one of the great charlatans of our time

[lawrenlelko]

Universe, solar system, planets, ecosystems, beings, organs, tissues, cells (with partial instructions - DNA - apparently excluding form), chemicals, atoms, prot/neut/elect rons, quarks, gluons, photons, mesons, energy in the form of vibrating strings. Who's shaking the strings, friend? Perhaps a ghost of some type? Sorry, here's an easier one - when you pick up an orange from a table, haven't you dictated what trillions of strings are doing? You will it. Problem: human wills conflict. Answer?

[ZachRose88]

Who is this moron? Dislike.

[ponedog]

Lost all respect for Tom Wolfe. Clueless idiot weighing in on topics about which he knows next to nothing.

[lawrenlelko]

Those who want to prove Genetic Determinism true will succeed, but only on an individual basis. If you're doing your best to stomp your "ghost" to death, take a moment to fear what you might accomplish. For those of us who love our "ghost", you're sad to watch. If you manage to kill your "ghost", you'll become what you're struggling to be. You'll be machine with no "ghost". If you think you're writhing in psychological pain now, just wait. I say - relax, breathe, and Give Your "Ghost" a Chance.

[lawrenlelko]

What passes for science today... I've studied a few fields of "science" to their core, namely: memory, motivation, and adult learning. My work shows that memory theory is solid and useable, motivation theory is a shambles of marginal contrived results. And adult learning theory (ALT) deserves no comment as it would be like making fun of the retarded. Richard Dawkins is somewhere on the far side of ALT. Besides, Sting and Tom Wolfe know there is a ghost in the machine. That's good enough for me.

[Christopholaes]

@lawrenlelko What you mean like a soul? Sounds like semantic games to me...

Show me the ghost where does it reside, what is it made of. If it has qualities, what are they?

This is the problem I have with such ideas, it's just an appeal to an old mentally aesthetic archetype of a 'soul' or ghost'.

The fact that our genetic heritage, not individually, but as group determines most of our behaviour even in the complexity of socialisation and language we see today. May not be a comfortable truth...

[NikTheJew]

I like Tom Wolfe, but he's damn wrong here. Bonfire of the Vanities is still damn good. Luckily it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

[killerboyfoolz]

Where dawkins?

[Contextcatcher]

People whose job is thinking in logic ways, mathematicians etc, tend to be strict. Free will seem for them out of the question. Dogmatic logicians and theologians have a lot in common. The novel writer shows us the irrational ways of human conduct. Fantasy shows us a free wlll. For real: architect Gaudi' showed us his creative free will in public. but inside he found his inspiration in catholic religion: he was bound by God. Builders of Sagrada Famila are still bound by Gaudi's logic of motives.

[666arzin]

Hahaha what does that even mean "I made the mistake, of - which I now freely admit..."

Are we really that obsessed about the perfect leader? If we can't imagine ourselves in a state of mind contrary to the one we hold at any given moment, we aren't thinking things through.

[Contextcatcher]

A 'free will' is maybe at best showed in novels: a writer can make many unusual choises on his own: defending often the free will against a restrictive society. Shakespeare is a fine example. Many creative and inventive artists came and come from restricitve social backrounds. But the question arises: is an urge for freedom a free choise or a necessary need for mental health? And mental health isn't the same for everybody: the most convincing sight or vision specifies our private direction: love

[BfSkinnerPunk]

Tom Wolfe's conclusions are clever (albeit unoriginal). Still, he is far less qualified to make statements regarding free will than any of those that he tried to discredit. Neuroscience still has very little to say about "why we do what we do". They know stuff about the physiology of neural tissue, but it is a huge leap from that to explaining why a person, for example, buys a brown car instead of a blue one. On that, neuroscience is as lost as joe six pack.

[Contextcatcher]

Speech is special and neuroscience don't think enough about the fine effect of words for our awareness. Scan images are snapshots: they're too deceiving for fast general conclusions. The best writers, inventers of characters with variety of speeches, have subtle knowledge that made them, as Tom Wolfe here, hypersensitve for words. Most writers know that word driven thoughts start a proces of 'touching' to uncover memories. Shakespeare without knowledge of neurons knew the crucial grip of words.

[ScottBrown666]

Neuroscience is the study of the brain, which evolved through the transmission of genes over millions of years. That's not even 6 degrees of separation, Mr. Wolf.

Wow. I used to have respect for Tom Wolfe... I don't even have enough characters to discredit all his misrepresentations and non sequiturs... Maybe he's losing his marbles. It's funny how he, as a journalist, has the gall to question the scientific knowledge of scientists. Debate Sam Harris on these points please, Mr. Wolf.

[SirGeorge8600]

Dawkins is a strong supporter of genetic determination like it or not. I've been reading Dawkins' work and scientific articles since the 80's, the guy is a straight-out brilliant biologist. Contrary to popular thought, he isn't a liberal and many of his ideals can be against liberalism, yet his recent book the God Delusion has gained popularity with this crowd whom fail to realize this isn't Dawkins' expertise or main care.

[xtrmsprts]

tom wolfe should confine himself to his colorful metaphors and white suits. his sentence on genetics carries little to no weight.

[macsm]

@benjmann2 I can agree with you on your last point; also, people who really know about a particular subject, rarely voice their opinions, ironically. A lot of the time the things that are said (mostly about people) have some relation to some political issue of the time and not necessarily to what is true. Having this in mind also, I can say that Wolfe was out of order in his remarks. I have not heard Dawkins refer to Wolfe in that way.

[macsm]

@benjmann2 Well I have nothing against Wolfe of course, but he is known enough in those circles to be fair, don't you think? I have never heard Hitchens make categorical remarks on the vein of what Wolfe remarks were. Besides, debates about the existence of god are still philosophical, so Hitchens would not be out of place in that subject. Wolfe, on the other hand, makes it sound like he is some sort of expert on the scientific subject, when he is not.

[macsm]

@benjmann2 It seems to me Wolffe should not have even opened his mouth to begin with, as he is in position to say anything about the subject. He is a freaking writer for Pete's sake (also demagogic from I can see)....

[ChickenWingChampion]

I don't like this guy....

[macsm]

How can Wolfe say "what Dawkins doesn't understand is.." if he is not a scientist himself? Dawkins is way closer to an expert on the matter than he will ever be (using Wolfe's argument). Quite a bit arrogant of Wolfe's part, sparks suspicion of him being a BS artist...

[SirGeorge8600]

@macsm It's a euphemism in argument...

[McSibiss]

huh... Dawkins is NOT a determinist. No one in their right mind would be in the REAL sense of the word.

[roxasroks]

What does the non existence of free will have to do with moral capacity? Grrr, that makes me so angry. Don't know why so much though lol..

[greg5566]

Tom Wolfe is an amazingly ignorant man. Genetics isn't a science?!

[SimulacrumMaster]

@greg5566 check out the rest of the interview, not just this clip. wolfe goes on to that genetic theory was based on the analogy to mechanics ("built" a certain way) and this not-really-science has continued on into the modern era, i.e. now in the computer age we refer to human beings as "hard-wired" for certain activities. this makes intuitive sense, but that doesn't mean it's true as implied. also, don't confuse biology and biochemistry with genetic theory.

[greg5566]

@SimulacrumMaster I'm not clear what you're saying. Is he saying it's the wrong analogy? Or that the science was wrong because it grew from that analogy? The former is correct: it is the CHRISTIAN description of genetics, not the scientist's description.  Scientists don't say genetics was DESIGNED at all.

But if you're saying he's saying genetics is "wrong" because it was based on this metaphor, that is just idiotic. Questioning the validity of genetics is idiotic.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@greg5566 again, he's not questioning the "validity of genetics" but rather the premise that genetic theory revolves around. keep in mind that it is more a philosophy (hypothetical musings) than a hard science (i.e. direct cause-effect with provable results). testing in genetic theory is done largely by selecting a factor, assuming it is a genetic trait, and drawing correlations. that's not good science. typical example:

slate(dot)com/id/2194232

replace the (dot) with a period.

[Mikeofdundee1987]

No pyschologist can state 100% why humans do not work on a stimulus response model all fo the time, or why they can go against learned behaviour. Equaly, just because Dawkins is an expert in Rabbits and Apes, that does not mean he is an expert on the human mind. It is worth remembering that pyschology is not a natural science. Things like memes are a lie.

[roxasroks]

@Mikeofdundee1987 It can be a natural science and will be when we know enough about the way our brains work.

[roxasroks]

@Mikeofdundee1987 And if you say no... want a bet?

[S0chan]

Determinism does not take away the capacity for moral judgment and even free will if you know what free will really is.

This is ridiculous.

[Hoomanmohammadi76]

@S0chan can you please explain? I have always understood biological determinism to be mutually exclusive with free will ...

[stud6999]

Daniel Dennett argues the same thing. Unfortunately, I just don't understand it. Can you explain why I'm wrong to believe that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive?

Thanks

[FaganRoberts]

@stud6999 Dennett is a compatablist. One has free will but within a deterministic universe. He has excellent interview on the subject on YT.

[martinthulin]

That depends on ur definition of "free will"....

[drtompat]

Tom Wolfe is one of my favorite writers, but ... in Hooking Up, he decried "intellectuals" as those pretentious know it alls who speak outside of their field of expertise and expect to be taken seriously. TW, look in the mirror. Evolution continues in the human race, but the selection criteria have changed. Evolution never stops. And didn't Dennet write "Consciousness Explained?"

[myroncope]

Tom Wolfe writes good books about pop culture and society. I've read many of his books and have seen him speak. But he doesn't know shit about science.

[julebakst]

Tom "WTF" Wolfe

[IfanSaer]

Massive LOL at ''homo loquacks'' :D

[TBlake34]

I just wanted to take a moment to laugh at the guy below who was angry at Dawkins and Dennett for their strict "Darwinian interpretation of evolution."

Hilarious.

[ashburnhouse]

That is the best. I'm laughing so hard there are tears in my eyes. Amazing.

[SSTTEEAALLTTHH]

@TBlake34

I don't get it, what's funny about it?

[jodiebug1]

Where are his neuroscience credentials, then? If everyone needs to be an expert in every field they touch, jeez.

Nudiford, you have it absolutely right. And he's making a total straw man argument. That is not what they say about free will, although they acknowledge that genetics is the driver. Of course evolution still happens to people. Even if there were no selection pressure, we'd still have genetic drift...

[longerdaysdyings]

it will take more than a couple of american hacks to cut down dawkins.

your axes have never been sharp enough.

[ColinTheMedStudent]

It isn't a war between America and Dawkins (ie the UK). Believe it or not, there are far more intellectuals here in the US than there are in Britain, and we loathe these hacks as much as you do. Be thankful they are in our backyard and not yours. America takes all kinds, the bright and the dull alike.

[TheProgressistViewer]

The worst and the best

[noinlair]

Looks like Tom Wolfe doesn't have the right stuff.

[JohnR22926]

The argument has raged over Nature vs Nurture for 150 yrs. IMO they're both important, but Nature (genetics) is the driver. Studies done of identical twins separated at birth have documented astounding similarities in everything from political outlook, personality traits, etc.

When we're born we're not a blank slate. We're like a photographic negative. Nurture determines how well the negative is developed, but if it aint on the negative to start with, you can't put it there through nuture.

[Nudiford]

Unfortunate comments by Wolfe... literature indeed, a very literary take on Dennett and Dawkins from a literary mind. It's too bad, Wolfe really is a nice guy.

[polymath7]

What exactly do you mean by "...a very literary take..."?

[Nudiford]

One may say poetically that Dawkins/Dennett are writing literature but this is not strictly true. Men like Dawkins and Dennett cannot simply tell a good story, they must tether themselves to science or face a sneering dismissal. To make statements that imply Dennett and Dawkins write in blissful ignorance of neuroscienceas though there isnt inadvertent overlap, as well as the use of data that can be gleaned from the neurosciences though one is not a neuroscientistis just silliness.

[SidedPanic]

'they must tether themselves to science or face a sneering dismissal'

I would argue in fact that it Is their constant attatchment to (very basic) science that seperates them from any of the real important thinkers of the past, like Bertrand Russell (And produces sneering dismissals by the likes of Wolfe) - as both posses very poor neuroscience based and theological knowledge and yet, they in fact, choose to engage (rather skimmingly) with these very complex subjects.

[Nudiford]

Dawkins/Dennett have earned the contempt of many for their strict Darwinian interpretation of evolution, their criticisms of guys like Gould and Chomsky, and, of course, their atheism. So a lot of pinheads look for every chance to minimize their credibility. By speaking of Betrand Russell, who is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and theological knowledge you show yourself to be a silly, God-promoting half-wit. Sorry, SidedPanic, but youre not credible.

[SidedPanic]

'God-promoting half-wit'

When did I promote God? When did I even hint at theistic thought - your knee-jerk reaction was a false alarm, my friend. I think little of Dawkins and Dennett because they tie their strong specific areas of evolutionary knowledge to everything else of which they know next to nothing, not because their atheists - hence both bertrand russell and theology.. but yeh, you're the credible one.

[Nudiford]

Dont be silly, SidedPanic. There is valid comment to be made regarding scientific disciplines outside of, yet informed by, ones own discipline. An anthropologist who speaks on world religion or evolution but is neither an evolutionary biologist or a theology scholar is not thought to be overstepping any line of good discretion. Similarly, simply being a neurobiologist doesn't give one the TRUTH of evolutionary theory- though it is extremely useful to inform evolutionary theory.

[SidedPanic]

I never said there weren't valid comments to be made, it's just Dennet and Dawkins don't make them. I do think both Dennet and Dawkins make many valid comments in their home fields, but dawkins is renowned for his evolutionary based literature, not research or his other diversions. Similarly with Dennet's base in cognitive science.

I don't dismiss based on theology, but their use of Many complex topics with simple and misleading writing - much the same as many christian scholars or theologians.

[Nudiford]

Yet I hear this peculiar criticism of Dawkins, who is a renowned biologist, and Dennett, who is a brilliant inter-disciplinary synthesizer, as though their conclusions are made invalid by their lack of specialized expertise in every field upon which their own intellectual pursuits overlap. Why these ad hominem attacks? I think the glib dismissals on the basis of their lack of theological knowledge (as you put it) says a good deal about the minds and motivations of these appeals to authority.

[Nudiford]

Wolfe has his own just-so story to tell and I am skeptical that his story is tethered to science more than those he glibly dismisses. He seems to be leaning the way literary men tend to lean- pulling the human mind/speech etc. back into the abyss of mystery (where Gods, monsters and souls roam, btw) I suspect in Wolfes story we are to stand in awe at the majesty of our neurological complexity, free from the grubbiness of a strictly adaptationist (materialist) explanation of human development.

[flikmuth88]

god this guy doesn't know what he's talking about

[hdtwoodsman]

I love Wolfe's writings, but he is wrong in stating neuroscience has nothing to do with genetic theory.

[polymath7]

This man is a fucking pinhead.

I won't pretend have read a single jot or tittle of his writing but on the basis of clips from this interview alone, I feel I can quite safely say it is in the highest degree unlikely that he could possibly have written anything worth reading -unless, I suppose, he is suffering from presnile dementia and was once much, much sharper than he appears here.

If this is indeed the case, I apologize.

[plimbuff]

This guy is an idiot. Speech has accelerated our evolution.

[eirefrance]

What does "evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech" mean? How does that symbolize the end of evolution. I'd be interested to read a transcript of that speech.

[tokotokotoko3]

It can't. That statement is just bullshit. As if you could ever possibly end evolution.

[OneBigRetard]

It is the end of Human Darwinian evolution. The moment we could speak we could form societies. The moment we formed societies the week were bale to survive.

Of course there will be evolution, but the survival of the fittest ended with Humans a long time ago.

[tokotokotoko3]

That makes no sense. Don't people die? Don't people get children? Of course they do - you can't stop evolution. And "fittest" was never meant to just mean the one that has the most muscles - it means the best adapted. And there are many ways to be badly adapted to todays world.

[OneBigRetard]

Yes numb nuts. But the unfit ones breed at least as much if not more than the fit ones.

If you can't see the effect of other people catching your food has on evolution then I give up.

And thanks for the condesention regarding the muscles.

[tokotokotoko3]

Who defines what is fit and not? You? Nope, sorry to say. It is evolution itself - whoever survives and multiplies is the fitter one. If that's a fat dumb dude, that might not be to your liking, but doesn't matter to evolution.

Ther is not law of nature or evolution that smart and strong creatures are the fittest.

You're using your personal human meanings - but you should use universal scientific terminology.

[OneBigRetard]

No I am not.

It now means the survival of all. To raise offspring all you need to do is shag. Ie. last to 13 with your balls intact. In developed society the state takes care of the rest.

So there may well be mutations, but there is no force to develop anymore. A faster, or even smarter person (or superior in anyway really) no longer has the same advantage when it comes to passing on DNA.

You are suggesting I don't like fat dumb dudes. Unfair.

But it DID matter to evolution. No longer

[tokotokotoko3]

With "But it DID matter to evolution" you show that you don't understand the principle of it. Nothing matters to evolution - except arguably multiplication and survival.

Smarter can well be a disadvantage - there is no internal drive towards smartness in evolution. Just remember that humanity nearly died out - not the least because our brainpower needs loads of energy.

If beeing faster and smarter doesn't help your survival, then evolution gets rid of it. And evolution itself just goes on.

[OneBigRetard]

I disagree with none of the above. It is elementry. However, dumb, slow, fast, smart. We can all pass on our DNA regardless.

Natures filters have been removed from humanity. There are simply no longer factors which radically determine our likelyhood of successfully breeding. That is what is meant by the end of evolution. No one is suggesting an end to genetic mutation or the passage of time.

[tokotokotoko3]

Natures selection didn't stop now with humanity - it just changed criteria. So the ability to gather food is not important anymore (as others can do it for you). I would say that for example social skills did gain importance.

So you say mutation still works and selection still works - thus you agree with my point all along: Evolution didn't stop.

I'm not quite sure why you argue still.

[OneBigRetard]

I didn't say evolution wants fast or smart. I said that whatever the critera for improved survival. It no longer exists.

Since mass population, the ugliest and the most useless can still find an equivelent and breed.

There are not only not the same darwinian forces acting on Human kind. There are almost none. Hence the mass over population.

Mass transport, surpluss resources. This has stopped human evolution.

I didn't say selection still works.

[tokotokotoko3]

If selection works than evolution works. And if you actually look at the world in the big picuture, there is a lot of death going on still (not that this point plays a role for the topic).

Actually there are also studies how the human genome developed in fairly recent times, and it was surprisingly much. There is development going on for sure.

[OneBigRetard]

Well then now this is becoming quite semantic. I don't think you disagree with me.

The things determining death amongst humans (before producing off-spring) has little to do with genetics. This is pretty unique in the hard world of nature.

The process of a species involving requires a dying off of the previous and less adapted model. Without those forces those same mutations no longer cause evolution in the usual sense.

[tokotokotoko3]

Sorry I've misread your sentence - and understood you "didn't deny selection still works".

Anyways I don't agree. But we're turning in circles, so I don't see much use in discussing much further.

The mere fact that certain groups of humans get more children then others, proves that selection is happening. Thus supporting my point. As long as not everyone gets the exact same amount of children in the whole world, evolution moves on.

[OneBigRetard]

"If selection works". Quite agree. But my whole fucking point is that it is not working. As previously stated.

[OneBigRetard]

As for my not 'understanding the principle'.

It depends what you mean by 'matter' you arrogant twat.

You say multiplication and survival 'matter' to evolution. I say being dumb and fat or whatever the critera is mattered to your chances of multiplication and survival. Therefore mattering to Human evolution.

You suggesting that I am giving evolution sentient character is cheap and retarded.

[tokotokotoko3]

Not sure why you get so aggrevated - I did not attack you in anyway, just your mistakes. And yes - you subscribe to evolution it has some kind of goal of creating fast and smart creatures.

Just look at dinosaurs - or walrusses or whatnot: There can be very much slow, fat and stupid creatures. Just as long as they survive.

[OneBigRetard]

Which groups?

And yes, we are arguing in circles.

[confusedmatthew]

You know, he (Tom Wolfe) may be a shithead, but he's got a point.

[pouyanb]

What about Ramachandran ? Prhaps He also does not undertand Neroscience.lol

[ToListen]

Why did he drink in mid-sentence? lol

[ioniTCc]

He was thirsty.

[enemymouse]

how can people be voting this video down?