Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Among the ongoing battles in anthropology and paleontology since the mid-Nineteenth Century to now, is the distinction between the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man. Specifically this devolves down to what happened to the Neanderthals, since the fossil record appears to show their extinction about 20,000 years ago. My assumption is that most readers are familiar with a lot of this material. It is easily attainable through Google or Wiki. What I find most interesting in this ongoing debate is the impact that Social Darwinism might have played in the original depiction of Neanderthals and in the assumptions made by some scientists about this species.
“Social Darwinism is a term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies predicated on the idea of survival of the fittest.[1] It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. The most prominent form of such views stressed competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism but it is also connected to the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[2], Fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
The first skull of the Neanderthal had been discovered in 1926, but it was the discovery in 1856, in the Neanderthal Valley, in Germany that gave the species a name. We all know that the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” in 1859 set off a firestorm of both intellectual excitement and angry social resistance. By the end of the Nineteenth Century scientists, sociologists, physicians, philosophers, and politicians had misused Darwin’s phrase “survival of the fittest” to justify a host of theories that boiled down to two intertwined propositions. The first was that White People represented the apogee of human civilization and the second that among white people the Anglo-Saxon Teutonic strain represented the elite. This justified Eugenics, Imperialism and even the attempted genocide of the Native Americans. In politics, it also represented a definite anti-democratic strain, articulated prominently by Theodore Roosevelt, who believed that those of Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic origin should rule the Nation since the “rabble” was incapable of civilized behavior without their strong leadership.
These theories dominated most intellectual thought from the 1870’s through the 1940’s and was adapted accordingly to each new political situation that arose. “Marcellin Boule (1 January 1861 — 4 July 1942) was a French palaeontologist. He studied and published the first analysis of a complete Homo neanderthalensis. The fossil discovered in La Chapelle-aux-Saints was an old man, and Boule characterized it as brutish, bent kneed and not a fully erect biped [1]. In an illustration he commissioned, the Neanderthal was characterized as a hairy gorilla-like figure with opposable toes, according to a skeleton which was already distorted with arthritis. As a result, Neanderthals were viewed as highly primitive creatures in subsequent decades.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellin_Boule
Even before Boule, the discovery of Neanderthal and subsequently Cro-Magnon skeletal remains had become intermixed with racial theories. This was because the skeletal remains of Cro-Magnons were considered to be anatomically those of modern man, while Neanderthals were heavier boned with sloping skulls. Historically, there seems to be no typically Neanderthal remains discovered for perhaps the last 20,000 to 30,000 years. It wasn’t implausible to believe they had become extinct and further that they had lost a battle of survival with the Cro-Magnons, due to the superiority of the Cro-Magnon (modern human) strain. These discoveries were so exciting to the populace in general that it led to many popular depictions of both species. The Neanderthals were depicted as darker skinned, with ape-like bodies and faces. The depictions were strikingly similar to the caricatures of Africans also popular then.
It is little wonder to me that the theories of Neanderthal extinction dovetailed completely into the Social Darwinist concept of survival of the fittest, among what they wrongly characterized as “races” and conflated with ethnicity. With Social Darwinist undertones, it became the dominant theory among anthropologists and paleontologists that the Neanderthal was more primitive socially, technologically and intellectually. This led to their extinction, whether by direct violence or an inability to compete for the necessities of life. Anthropology, Archaeology and Paleontology have always been of great interest to me intellectually. In my readings, one of the most striking things I’ve noticed is the reticence of these sciences to explore or accept new ideas that go against the group’s common wisdom. There is a stultification of ideas in these sciences as the current “stars” of their firmament feel threatened by new ideas that challenge careers spent advocating particular beliefs. Just as Schliemann’s theory that Troy was real was ridiculed by the then Archaeological Establishment, only to be proven correct, so was any suggestion that the Neanderthal may have interbred with the Cro-Magnon’s and modern humans may represent the hybrids of this interbreeding.
Yesterday a story reported on MSNBC brought this to mind, although I was familiar with the ongoing argument.
There is genetic evidence now that Neanderthals did interbreed with Cro-Magnons coming intoEuropefromAfrica. While this by no means fully settles the question of the fate of the Neanderthals, it does lend credence to the work of Erik Trinkaus, who has led the derided minority faction that believed there was interbreeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Trinkaus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_admixture_theory
We have been brought up to believe that science is a pure search for the truth, backed by solid theories, proven by experimentation. This isn’t always the case. Scientists are human beings first, with all the frailties that connotes. Jealousy, egotism, greed, and other less than scientific behavior are as rife within the scientific community as with any other profession. Prejudice, in my opinion has played a significant role in the “Social Sciences” since their inception. In this instance I use, I do believe that the popularity of an underlying Social Darwinist perspective had a strong influence for many years as to how we viewed the Neanderthal.
There is rarely, if ever, perfect proof of any social science theory, that is to be left to what we call the “Hard Sciences”. Consider for instance the belief as to when the Neanderthal’s became extinct, if indeed they have. This is because we haven’t found any Neanderthal skeletal remains after about 20,000 BCE. The world though is a large place. We also know that around 8,000 to 10,000 BCE much land became flooded. Perhaps the “extinction” date exists only because we have not yet found subsequent evidence. When “social scientists” base their careers on only one system of belief, perhaps informed by their own prejudice, they pervert what we know as the Scientific Method and can often inhibit the growth of knowledge, which after all is the true purpose of science.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
“In this essay, I have cited a wealth of evidence that biased research interpretation is a common phenomenon, and an overdetermined one, with a variety of intentional, motivational, and purely cognitive determinants. But there is a danger of excessive cynicism here. First, the evidence suggests that the biases are often subtle and small in magnitude; few research consumers see whatever they want in the data. The available evidence constrains our interpretations – even when intentions are fraudulent – and the stronger and more comprehensive the evidence, the less wiggle room available for bias. Second, far from condemning the research enterprise, the evidence cited here provides grounds for celebrating it; systematic empirical research methods have played a powerful role in identifying biased research interpretation and uncovering its sources”
MM at JCU,
I have to go out shortly but I quickly read through the essay and on a superficial basis it seems quite reasonable to me and not at odds with my points. I am a believer in and lover of science. This is especially true with the “Social Sciences” where I have a decent knowledge base. As with this essay, I don’t see science as being less valuable, because bias slips into the equation. However, we must allow and look for bias as new research evolves.
Where I become annoyed is when the debates turn into personal contests of ego and where the investment in peoples theories gets written in stone. The Neanderthal extinction debate is ongoing and far from proven, one way or the other. Erik Trinkhaus was for years ridiculed for his theories and attempts were made to marginalize his research, that there is now some evidence of his theories is a measure of vindication. I’ll reread the piece critically when I have more time because it is an interesting contribution. Thank you.
Mike, verbal skills as measured by IQ tests such as the Wechsler series depend on far more than vocabulary. Of course, vocabulary is important, but there are other skills such as verbal reasoning. Being asked how one would go about solving an everyday problem or explain a social issue are examples. Explaining proverbs of increasing complexity are other tasks. Verbal memory is also tested. Knowledge of the world is one of the subtests; for example, what is some famous person (naming a historical figure) known for?
Way more than simple vocabulary. A professor of education at Washington University in St. Louis gave the best simple definition of intelligence I have ever heard: “The level of ability to learn quickly and easily.”
Dear Mr. Spindell,
If you have the time would you please look at this link and offer an opinion?
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html
I thought it was interesting in light of the material being discussed here.
“Did your love for reading cause your high verbal skills? Or were your high verbal skills the cause of your love for reading? Because we’ve tried to instill a love of reading in kids without high verbal skills, and it hasn’t worked out so well.”
There are some children who may have difficulty learning to read because they may have dyslexia or some other reading disability. Many of these same children are very intelligent and articulate and have excellent comprehension. That’s why it’s of utmost importance to read quality literature aloud to all children. There are some who may appear to be low level learners who are actually well above average in intelligence.
*****
“peopel don’t learn vocabulary through direct teaching of word-meaning correspondences.”
They learn vocabulary best when they hear it/read it used in context.
Ask Elaine. She would know.
Actually verbal IQ scores test mostly reasoning ability. Developing a large vocabulary, especially through reading, is highly dependent on your ability to discern meaning through exposure to language in the environment, i.e, reasoning. peopel don’t learn vocabulary through direct teaching of word-meaning correspondences.
If you still want some cites, Mike, I can provide them for you later today.
“Because we’ve tried to instill a love of reading in kids without high verbal skills, and it hasn’t worked out so well.”
Is that an assertion, or based on some evidence? Tests of verbal skills are measures of vocabulary. Growing up in a family with a large vocabulary and reading many books, tends to expand ones vocabulary greatly. Vocabulary is a trick in that makes a person seem far more intelligent than they are. William F. Buckley used it for years to make himself appear intelligent, but unfortunately had poor reasoning skills in debate, glossed over by the persiflage of his verbosity.
In any scientific debate it is always helpful to view who has what ax to grind.
“That Morton’s data are reliable despite his clear bias weakens the argument of Gould and others that biased results are endemic in science. Gould was certainly correct to note that scientists are human beings and, as such, are inevitably biased, a point frequently made in “science studies.” But the power of the scientific approach is that a properly designed and executed methodology can largely shield the outcome from the influence of the investigator’s bias.”
Gould’s assault on scientific bias was and is a threat to the scientific establishment as a whole. This was true not because he disparaged research, but because he sought to contextualize it and thus bring to it further clarity. All those who wrote the referenced study are research scientists who have their careers funded through their research. As such any possible hint that they’re biases might influence their results is one that puts them on the defensive. Reading the entire article quoted, Morton’s research of skull size was a biased attempt to define worthiness of “race”, by defining people’s intelligence via cranial capacity, as the authors admit.
I wonder why the effort was put into this misguided research except to discredit Gould’s contentions that bias sometimes influences science, a fact
well discussed in even diverse fields like physics. Their tactic appears to me to be like a child saying, “well he did it too”.
“As Gould pointed out IQ is merely an arbitrary test of intelligence biased by factors that ignore many other criteria.”
Ok, so let’s just assume IQ tests measure intelligence plus a whole host of other intertwined executive functions. Does that make you feel better? The point is that, IQ has high predictive value and we don’t know how to affect it much beyond adolescence. This has profound implications for education policy.
“Knowing myself well I know that my IQ scores (and SAT scores) were inflated by my verbal skills, developed by growing up in a family of readers, who from my earliest age bequeathed on me a library of good books to read.”
Did your love for reading cause your high verbal skills? Or were your high verbal skills the cause of your love for reading? Because we’ve tried to instill a love of reading in kids without high verbal skills, and it hasn’t worked out so well.
“I read a book written by the late Stephen J. Gould”
Elaine,
Gould is a scientific hero of mine. I didn’t read that book, but I regularly enjoyed his essays in the “Natural History” magazine and his participation in PBS programming. His stance on IQ testing has been my own for a very long time. This may seem a personal paradox, since I have a “MENSA” class IQ, but always found the organization distasteful. Insert the old Groucho line: “I wouldn’t join any club that would have me”.
Knowing myself well I know that my IQ scores (and SAT scores) were inflated by my verbal skills, developed by growing up in a family of readers, who from my earliest age bequeathed on me a library of good books to read. Since I was a lazy and rebellious student I was constantly told I wasn’t living up to my potential. I actually admired those students who worked laboriously on their studies and achieved great marks. I lacked their capacity for serious focus and so was outdistanced by them academically.
Intellectually, I’m more of a trickster, than savant. Perhaps some would see that assessment as a harsh judgment, but I’m quite happy with myself and unashamed of who I am.
As Gould pointed out IQ is merely an arbitrary test of intelligence biased by factors that ignore many other criteria. As a Gestalt Therapist I believe that we are not beings with a mind ruling a body, “The Mind/Body Split”, but can only be measured as one organism, with “intelligence” located throughout and importantly informed by our “feelings”. Gould presciently questioned the arbitrary criteria used to define “intelligence” and that for me says it all. IQ tests and SAT’s have inherent biases that make them unhelpful in measuring intelligence.
.
OS, see the Jason E. Lewis, Ralph L. Holloway, et al study. tThis ties in well to the discussion of scientific consensus and the inherent problems thereof. Where is slartifartblast when you need him?
According to what I have been able to find out, Gould did not personally examine the skulls, but used Morton’s own measurements for his analysis. Too bad both men are now deceased. It would be wonderful to be treated to an vigorous scientific debate of them defending their positions, or perhaps altering their conclusions in light of new discoveries.
@Elaine, be careful with the Gould references, his “scholarship” has been taking a hit lately:
A new study of Morton’s old skulls by Jason E. Lewis, Ralph L. Holloway, et al, shows that Gould was projecting.
The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias
Stephen Jay Gould, the prominent evolutionary biologist and science historian, argued that “unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm” because “scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth” [1], a view now popular in social studies of science [2]–[4]. In support of his argument Gould presented the case of Samuel George Morton, a 19th-century physician and physical anthropologist famous for his measurements of human skulls. Morton was considered the objectivist of his era, but Gould reanalyzed Morton’s data and in his prize-winning book The Mismeasure of Man [5] argued that Morton skewed his data to fit his preconceptions about human variation. Morton is now viewed as a canonical example of scientific misconduct. But did Morton really fudge his data? Are studies of human variation inevitably biased, as per Gould, or are objective accounts attainable, as Morton attempted? We investigated these questions by remeasuring Morton’s skulls and reexamining both Morton’s and Gould’s analyses. Our results resolve this historical controversy, demonstrating that Morton did not manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould. In fact, the Morton case provides an example of how the scientific method can shield results from cultural biases.
… Our analysis of Gould’s claims reveals that most of Gould’s criticisms are poorly supported or falsified.
Call of the phrenologist: ” My bump’s bigger than your bump and prettier too.”
Elaine and Mespo,
Thank you for your links which illustrate that while science has made wonderful strides, the history of theories is such that they are only temporary diagnoses, needing revision as new experiments are performed and new discoveries are made. It is when a scientist, or a groups of same, base their entire careers on new insights they’ve developed, that problems arise. The tendency to reject out of hand any evidence that hurts the logic of ones’ pet theories is quite human, but doesn’t serve knowledge. Elaine’s links bear out that the riddle of the Neanderthal’s is an ongoing problem, that has been far from solved. Erik Trinkhaus was marginalized for years and has now received a measure of vindication, but the battle is yet over and the opposition has not acknowledged defeat.
“The truth is, no one really knows. And what we observe doesn’t indicate such an old earth.”
FFLP,
I was expecting someone to react as you did, however, the connotation that because of the lack clarity we don’t even know if the creationists are correct is simply not true. Radio-Carbon dating is based on experiment proven radioactive decay. The rate of decay is measurable and remains pretty much constant. Based on studies of rock alone the age of the planet is at least in the tens of millions of years. The other evidence is archaeological and that shows artifacts of civilization surpassing 7 to 10,000 years. As more is learned actually, the age of human civilization keeps being pushed farther into the past.
.
Mike S.,
Years ago, I read a book written by the late Stephen J. Gould titled “The Mismeasure of Man.” Have you read it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
Excerpt:
The Mismeasure of Man is a 1981 book written by the now deceased Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. The book is a history and critique of the methods and motivations underlying biological determinism, defined by Gould as the belief that “the social and economic differences between human groups — primarily races, classes, and sexes — arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an accurate reflection of biology.”[1]
The book also critiqued what Gould argued was the principal theme of biological determinism, that “worth can be assigned to individuals and groups by measuring intelligence as a single quantity.” Gould discussed two prominent techniques used to measure such a quantity, craniometry and psychological testing. Gould described these methods as suffering from “two deep fallacies”. The first fallacy, Gould argued, is of reification, that is, “our tendency to convert abstract concepts into entities.” These entities include IQ (the intelligence quotient) and g (the general intelligence factor), which have been the cornerstone of much intelligence research. The second fallacy is one of ranking, or our “propensity for ordering complex variation as a gradual ascending scale.”
The Mismeasure of Man criticized “the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status.”[2]
“Survival of the most fit is not derogatory, the perversion of “what is most fit” is where the perversion entered into the picture.”
Dredd,
Thank you for the condensing, which is really an elegant clarification. As happens to many people who revolutionize knowledge, some who followed in Darwin’s footsteps, used his theories to reinforce their own prejudice.In the case of the “Social Darwinist” types it was their definitions of “fit” that served their own bigotry. It provided a rationale for the attempted extermination of Native Americans, the enslavement of Blacks, the control of America by a “managerial elite” rudely defined as Anglo-Saxon and the extension of imperialism. Putative historians like Roosevelt and F.J. Turner
provided the “scholarship” that allowed entertainers like Bill Cody and novelists like Owen Wister, to turn have a groundwork to create the myth
popularizing in effect “The White Man’s Burden”.
Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence
Most of us have some Neanderthal genes, study finds.
Ker Than
for National Geographic News
Published May 6, 2010
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/
Excerpt:
The next time you’re tempted to call some oaf a Neanderthal, you might want to take a look in the mirror.
According to a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—at least 1 to 4 percent of a person’s genetic makeup.
The study uncovered the first solid genetic evidence that “modern” humans—or Homo sapiens—interbred with their Neanderthal neighbors, who mysteriously died out about 30,000 years ago.
What’s more, the Neanderthal-modern human mating apparently took place in the Middle East, shortly after modern humans had left Africa, not in Europe—as has long been suspected.
“We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans,” lead study author Ed Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a prepared statement.
That’s no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science.
“They’ve finally seen the light … because it’s been obvious to many us that this happened,” said Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, who wasn’t part of the new study.
Trinkhaus adds that most living humans probably have much more Neanderthal DNA than the new study suggests.
“One to 4 percent is truly a minimum,” Trinkaus added. “But is it 10 percent? Twenty percent? I have no idea.”
*****
Were Neandertals and Modern Humans Just Ships in the Night?
by Michael Balter on 9 May 2011
Science
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/were-neandertals-and-modern-huma.html
Excerpt:
Researchers have long debated how long Neandertals stuck around after modern humans invaded their home territories in Europe and Asia around 40,000 years ago. Some say as long as 10,000 years; others think Neandertals went extinct almost immediately. A new radiocarbon dating study of a Neandertal site in Russia concludes that the latter scenario is most likely, and that Neandertals and modern humans were probably like ships in the night. But don’t expect this to be the last word on this contentious subject.
Neandertals and modern humans likely encountered one another at least twice during prehistory. The first time was at least 80,000 years ago in the Near East, as evidenced by findings of both Neandertal and modern human bones in caves in Israel. But the moderns, who came up from Africa, apparently did not venture any farther than the Near East at that time, possibly due to competition from the Neandertals who were then occupying much of Europe and Asia.
Then, shortly before 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens—possibly now armed with more sophisticated technology and adaptive skills—began the massive migration that would take our species to pretty much everywhere on the globe, including the territories in Europe and Asia that were already occupied by Neandertals.
Recent genetic studies suggest that Neandertals and moderns interbred the first time but not the second. That has led some researchers to suspect that they were not neighbors for very long during the more recent overlap, especially in Europe. Some scientists, however, say that Neandertals hung on in “refugia” like southern Spain and Gibraltar until as late as 32,000 years ago. (All dates in this story are in calibrated radiocarbon years.)
Elaine, is is clear the commenter, “Fruit Flies Like Pears” does not spend much time with geologists or paleontologists.
I had much the same questions you did.
Fruit Flies Like Pears,
“For example, the alleged age of the earth. Not too long ago it was 2.2 million years old.”
Can you be more specific than “not too long ago?”
*****
“And what we observe doesn’t indicate such an old earth.”
Can you explain what we have observed that proves the Earth isn’t so old?
*****
And how old do the “religious right” believe the Earth is? About 6,000 years old?
I submitted a DNA sample back in 2006-07. They sent back charts and maps showing which migration routes I fit. It was really interesting and informative.