....... i w -M-1 GG. Allin batters himself, his audience, his music Sado-masochist's latest is the same old thrash/trash grunge-oid noise G.G. Alini Freaks, Faggots, Drunks, & Junkies Homestead Records G.G. Allin is the (il)logical ex- tension, extrapolation, and end re- sult of the self-and audience-abuse school of music exemplified by Iggy Pop, Sid Vicious, Stiv Bators, etc. G.G. Allin takes everything to an extreme. Onstage, his act con- sists of masturbation, defecation, urination, rolling in broken bottles, wrist-slashing, and using a micro- phone stand to batter himself and the audience. Oh yeah, he, uh, sings, too. The man is just too fucked up not to be real. The music is standard MC5/Stooges thrash/trash grunge-oid noise and sounds like it was recorded on G.G.'s jambox in his basement (which it probably was). His lyrics are obscene, scatological, and misogynist. They're also not quite muffled enough because you can still hear what he is saying. G.G. makes an amazing spectacle out of himself and as a consequence, has been banned from nearly every place he has ever played. If you want to check out the far, far side of mu- sic/performance, here's your man. Continued from Page 9 preconceived notion of a particular behavior. Vandermeer gave an ex- ample of this type of hypothesis by citing a human sociobiological proposal that, according to him, suggested that low-income people find themselves in the lower stratas of society because of their genetic make-up. "Evolutionary theory was developed to deal with traits that are inheritable. Human behaviors, in general, are not inherited and thus the large battery of evolutionary theory, which is in general correct and sophisticated, does not apply to human behavioral traits." But EHB Program Post-Doc Paul Turke said that human sociobiolo- gists do not say that human behav- ioral traits are inherited. "If you have two groups and they're doing things differently - I.Q. scores,for example - we can't say those dif- ferences are genetic - because there simply is no evidence for this - and we don't." In response to Vandermeer's assertion that theories about lower-income groups and a genetic correlation had been proposed, Alexander disputed that such a proposal had been ad- vanced, saying the idea was once suggested by a Harvard pyscholo- gist not a sociobiologist. And here we get down to the nitty-gritty in understanding this controversy. Kitcher's critique seems to suggest that the work Alexander and his colleagues in the EHB program are doing should be either halted or - and this is cru- cial - they should make an appeal to other fields for help, drawing on the work of "evolutionary theorists, developmental biologists and psy- chologists, sociologists and historians, cognitive psychologists, and anthropologists. Any resultant discipline," he concludes, "would be a real synthesis" [alluding to Wil- DURANT Continued from Page 10 As I was typing, the computer burped or something and a bunch of vertical lines flashed on the screen and stayed there. I don't think I need to say any more except "thank you" to a very understanding professor who believed me when I said, "But honest, I swear, the computer ate I recommend that to any student who goes in to take a test, READ THE QUESTIONS! You'd be sur- prised how many students on all types of tests - English, science, math, etc - don't do that. Some people can write circles around Joe's theory of X and be correct, but what if the question only asks you, "What is Joe's middle name?" Just think of the points you might loose if you don't complete that last step when solving those chem- istry and calculus problems or fail to solve for what it asks for. All have left to say is keep your ears open, be alert, and good luck! Oh yeah, a little studying never hurts. 2 son's book, S&ciobiology: the New Synthesis]. For now it's important to see why Kitcher believes human sociobiol- ogy should take an indefinite leave of absence. Because of the prepon- derance of errors, the speculations that "feature a yen for casual opti- mization and the parading of gossip as observational data," and due to the political implications inherent in sociobiological inquiry, Kitcher suggests Alexander and colleagues are not doing real science and should go back to the drawing board. , The naturalistic fallacy Kitcher seems to side with the early critics - even though he ad- mits their hastiness - by suggest- ing that whatever possible self- knowledge can come from the enterprise of human sociobiology, it can only impede the efforts being made to correct social injustices, and can only work against move- ments dedicated to changing the in- stitutions that foster oppression, racism, and sexism.tAlexander sees this argument as part of the "naturalistic fallacy." Those who employ the "is-to-ought fallacy," Alexander writes, believe that by looking into the evolutionary pro- cess, one can determine how we ought to proceed because what is "good" in evolution, they think, must be ethically good. Alexander maintains that those in the EHB program are conscious of this and stay away from it in their work. If, for example, chopping off the head of a competitor increases one's fit- ness, the argument goes, it does not follow that this practice is "naturally good." In this regard, Kitcher's fears stem from certain sociobiological postulations. For example, it has been observed in hunting-and-gath- ering societies that women gener- ally stay near the home-unit while the males cooperate in groups to hunt and deal with neighboring tribes. This human social behavior, it is then hypothesized, is the type of behavior that maximizes their ability to survive and reproduce. Here Kitcher sees scientists like Alexander suggesting that there is a biological basis for "political insti- tutions that many people would like to alter." But as EHB program post-doe. Paul Turke points out, "evolution doesn't tell us how we should live," but rather, why, using an evolutionary explanation, we might behave in the ways we do. Kitcher, it seems, is implying that sociobiologists are saying cul- tural variations have to do with ge- netic variations among peoples of the world. This, according to Wrangham, is something those in the EHB program simply do not say. Furthermore, says Wrangham, this misconception has generated many misleading ideas about what human sociobiologists are study- ing. "I don't see any evidence at all that cultural differences are due to genetic differences. And it is a key point that sociobiologists are con- cerned more with genetic conse- quences than genetic causation." Another flaw in Kitcher's argu- ment, Alexander adds, is related to the first. By encouraging the dis- mantling of human sociobiology based on its possible "political implications," Kitcher is bordering on "political censorship." Critics who judge a theory based on its political implications, as many writers during the debate have pointed out, effectively abandon the standards of science in deference to political ideology. These question- able criticisms notwithstanding, Kitcher does find specific errors in Alexander's methodology. Predictions and methodology Kitcher concerns himself with 25 predictions Alexander makes in a previous work (Darwinism and Human Affairs) - predictions based on the idea that patterns of social behavior maximize the inclusive fitness of the participants. Kitcher extracts four of the predic- tions and goes on to show that Alexander's list is full of "banal facts about ourselves that are only loosely connected with his central claim," and hence "the large claim that human beings act so as to maximize their inclusive fitness does not predict much about the de- tails of human sociality." Kitcher suggests that Alexander's entire list should be thrown out because the four predictions he cites - which happen to be the weakest - destroy the entire idea from which they came. This is crucial because