What do those two underlined parts refer to?

Question

What do those two underlined parts refer to?
The passage below is from ‘the Blank Slate’ by Steven Pinker.

http://evolbiol.ru/blankslate/blankslate.htm

It [=Benevolence] can evolve only in particular circumstances and has to be supported by a suite of cognitive and emotional faculties. Thus benevolence (and other social motives) must be dragged into the spotlight rather than treated as part of the furniture. In the sociobiological revolution of the 1970s, evolutionary biologists replaced the fuzzy feeling that organisms evolve to serve the greater good with deductions of what kinds of motives are likely to evolve when organisms interact with offspring, mates, siblings, friends, strangers, and adversaries.
When the predictions were combined with some basic facts about the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in which humans evolved, parts of the psyche that were previously inscrutable turned out to have a rationale as legible as those for depth perception and the regulation of thirst.

I want to double check what those two underlined parts refer to.

To me, the former refers to the part of the previous sentence, ie, ‘deductions of what kinds of motives are likely to evolve when organisms interact with offspring, mates, siblings, friends, strangers, and adversaries.’
And the latter stands for ‘parts.’

Am I right in my line of thought?

Regards.

Blue Jay · Accepted Answer

I think so, yes.

Stenka25 · Answer

Thanks a lot, Blue Jay.

Deadrat · Answer

I apologize in advance for this rant.

<starts the rant now>
Let's consider two of Pinker's claims:

In the sociobiological revolution of the 1970s, evolutionary biologists replaced the fuzzy feeling that organisms evolve to serve the greater good ....

That means all none of them. There were no "evolutionary biologists" in the 1970s who claimed that organisms evolved to serve the greater good. For two reasons. Reason the first: organisms don't evolve; only populations of organisms evolve. Reason the second: No competent biologist since at least the 1920s has held that evolution has any teleological function, which is to say that evolution has no goals at all (including the value of "good" outcomes) except in the sense that populations on average change (i.e., evolve) to ensure that more of their members survive to leave offspring in the current environment. This isn't a fuzzy feeling but something backed by the hard data of population genetics.

When the predictions were combined with some basic facts about the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in which humans evolved,....

That means all none of them. There are no extant "basic facts" about the "hunter-gatherer lifestyle in which humans evolved" because the "lifestyle" occurred long before humans learned to write, and the artifacts of the "lifestyle" didn't fossilize.

Let me recommend to you the writings of the late Richard Mitchell, the self-described Underground Grammarian, who published a pamphlet under that name for fifteen years imprinted with the words of Ben Jonson:

Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune, whose words do jarre; nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous.

More succinctly put: If an author's words don't make sense, his thoughts don't either. You have struggled over several posts to come to terms with Pinker's writing, and you have assumed that its mysteries will unfold once you've obtained sufficient instruction on the workings of English grammar. You are mistaken: the fault lies with the thinking, not the writing. To continue:

... parts of the psyche that were previously inscrutable turned out to have a rationale as legible as those for depth perception and the regulation of thirst.

That means all none of them. There are no parts of the psyche (i.e., the conscious mind that arises out of the neural organization of the brain) that are no longer inscrutable. We simply don't know enough about the brain to understand it's emergent properties. We do better with depth perception and thirst regulation, but these are physiological functions. That this sentence is meaningless is signaled clearly by its language. "Inscrutable" and "legible" are not opposites -- "inscrutable" means mysterious; "legible" means in a clear hand. Readable text may still be inscrutable. These words are in a jarring juxtaposition, and Richard Mitchell reminds us that Ben Jonson tells us why.

Please find a text on evolutionary biology. That will be worthy of your time.

<the rant endeth here>

CalifJim · Answer

deadratI apologize in advance for this rant.

At least you recognized that an apology was needed. I can't imagine what possessed you to turn a simple grammar question into all of that! Is this a case of "Someone needs a nap"?

CJ

Deadrat · Answer

Alas, you failed to recognize that my apology was insincere. And that this isn't a case of a "simple" grammar question. Re-read the Ben Jonson quote and get back to me after my nap.

Of course, I need the nap. It's exhausting standing out on the front steps all day and yelling at the kids to get off my lawn.

<insert the emoticon of your choice here. And don't even talk to me about emojis, whatever they are.>

What do those two underlined parts refer to?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

In the sociobiological revolution of the 1970s, evolutionary biologists replaced the fuzzy feeling that organisms evolve to serve the greater good ....

Related Questions