Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has


"John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fkbpag$2jo7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

<snip>

JE:-
Your problem is people simply do not understand it. If only you would
attempt write it out in a standard format with all your new terms defined
and preferably, without masses of bracketed inclusions, then reader's may
have a chance to understand it.

GS: My opinion is that, even if one takes time to wade through the
deliberately-obscure stuff that Peter posts, there is little merit to his
"scholarship." His ramblings mostly concern (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm
wrong) the behavioral effects of unavoidable aversive stimulation. Perhaps
he is also interested in aversive stimulation in general (as opposed to
unavoidable aversive stimulation), but the main thrust of his view concerns
unavoidable aversive stimulation. His view, I think, is that unavoidable
aversive stimulation leads to compensatory mechanisms (that he likens to
"hibernation") that are, I guess, psychopathology. He, however, is special
in the sense that he has escaped the psychopathology, apparently through his
education concerning Janov's writings. I have asked him many times about his
knowledge of the literature on unavoidable aversive events (a literature
that, arguably, began with Seliegman's original "learned helplessness"
experiments in, I think, the '70s) but he has answered me only with ad
hominems and abuse (which I'm not crying about- I have been, errr, direct in
my condemnation of many viewpoints, here and elsewhere). I also asked him
about his knowledge on the literature of aversive stimulation in general,
and received, again, mostly ad hominems, among them the notion that those
that investigate the behavioral effects aversive stimulation in non-human
animals are behaving unethically. Indeed, he has criticized me for using
food-restriction in non-humans (in order to make food a reinforcer) as being
unethical, and the experiments I have done as being superfluous,
scientifically (i.e., a waste of time given his privileged view).



In fairness to Peter, however, unavoidable aversive stimulation does appear
to have somewhat widespread behavioral effects, though that is just my
casual interpretation of the literature that I have sought out (in a
somewhat, admittedly, leisurely fashion).



Finally, I have referred to his writing as "deliberately-obscure" and I
think that there is merit in this observation. The nested parenthetical
addendums are almost impossible to follow, and he persists in this regard
despite repeated suggestions by others that he modify his writings.


<snip>



.