from Phil Runkel on 2000.09.12 at 16:20 in the Pacific.
Dear Gary:
I have now read, with great pleasure, your "Things We Do."
Putting first things first, I was happy to learn from the back of
your title page that the MIT Press used the Williamses in Gravel
Switch for their printers. And putting last things second, I
thought your last sentence on page 262 was a very appropriate
gentle needling.
I admire the smooth way you brought into view and interwove
the key ideas from Bernard, Darwin, Cannon, Powers, and some
others. Throughout, I was glad that you hammered repeatedly on
purpose, interdependence (interpenetration?) of organism and
environment, and circular causation. Those are the banners of
the revolution and cannot be paraded too often. And I liked the
way you made it seem that those ideas are there, within reach,
accessible to anybody, even though most writers for the
social-science establishment have been ignoring them.
Your exposition of the interdependence of organism and
environment on pages 169-175 are about the clearest and most
cogent I've seen, even though remarkably concise. If I'd had
those pages earlier, I wouldn't have had to read to the end of
Dawkins's book.
Thanks for giving me a better view of evolutionary
psychology than I had. The few articles I had read that were
labeled evolutionary psychology made me think the writers were
merely rehashing the old mistakes of social Darwinism. But now
that I have read your ten pages on the subject, I'll be more
welcoming -- though still cautious.
I was tickled to come upon your reference to Breland and
Breland (1961). I was greatly impressed at the time with what
they had to say, and I have no memory of anyone mentioning their
article (other than a couple of carping rejoinders in a later
issue of the American Psychologist) since then. So it was a
pleasure to discover that they have not been everywhere
forgotten.
Finally, though I was ready to read a good many more pages
of your comments on education than you put at the end of your
book, I have to admit that more would probably have been out of
proportion to your main message.
Now I suppose you want to know what I think is wrong about
your book. Well, that reminds me of the time the editor at the
Harvard Educational Review asked me to review a book. I had read
the book, liked it very much, and was eager to tell people about
it. When I sent my review to the editor, he (or was it she? I
forget) sent it back to me saying it wasn't very judicious,
because I had told only the good things about the book. He (she)
wanted me to add a section about the bad things. I told him
(her) sorry, you get good things or nothing. She (he) took
nothing. So if you want a judicious review of your book, don't
come to me.