{"id":4713,"date":"2015-11-26T11:24:31","date_gmt":"2015-11-26T16:24:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/?p=4713"},"modified":"2015-11-26T12:26:50","modified_gmt":"2015-11-26T17:26:50","slug":"of-ants-and-men-more-pbs-adventures-in-rearranging-blank-slate-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/2015\/11\/26\/human-nature\/of-ants-and-men-more-pbs-adventures-in-rearranging-blank-slate-history\/","title":{"rendered":"Of Ants and Men: More PBS Adventures in Rearranging Blank Slate History"},"content":{"rendered":"

The history of the rise and fall of the Blank Slate is fascinating, and not only as an example of the pathological derailment of whole branches of science in favor of ideological dogmas.\u00a0 The continuing foibles of the \u201cmen of science\u201d as they attempt to \u201creadjust\u201d that history are nearly as interesting in their own right.\u00a0 Their efforts at post-debacle damage control are a superb example of an aspect of human nature at work \u2013 tribalism.\u00a0 There is much at stake for the scientific \u201ctribe,\u201d not least of which is the myth of the self-correcting nature of science itself.\u00a0 What might be called the latest episode in the sometimes shameless, sometimes hilarious bowdlerization of history just appeared in the form of another PBS special; E. O. Wilson \u2013 Of Ants and Men<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 You can watch it online by clicking on the link.<\/p>\n

Before examining the latest twists in this continuously evolving plot, it would be useful to recap what has happened to date. \u00a0There is copious source material documenting not only the rise of the Blank Slate orthodoxy to hegemony in the behavioral sciences, but also the events that led to its collapse, not to mention the scientific apologetics that followed its demise. \u00a0In its modern form, the Blank Slate manifested itself as a sweeping denial that innate behavioral traits, or \u201chuman nature,\u201d had anything to do with human behavior beyond such basic functions as breathing and the elimination of waste.\u00a0 It was insisted that virtually everything about our behavior was learned, and a reflection of \u201cculture.\u201d\u00a0 By the early 1950\u2019s its control of the behavioral sciences was such that any scientist who dared to publish anything in direct opposition to it was literally risking his career.\u00a0 Many scientists have written of the prevailing atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and through the 1950s, \u201860s, and early \u201870s there was little in the way of \u201cself-correction\u201d emanating from within the scientific professions themselves.<\/p>\n

The \u201ccorrection,\u201d when it came, was supplied by an outsider \u2013 a playwright by the name of Robert Ardrey<\/a> who had taken an interest in anthropology.\u00a0 Beginning with African Genesis<\/em><\/a> in 1961, he published a series of four highly popular books that documented the copious evidence for the existence of human nature, and alerted a wondering public to the absurd extent to which its denial had been pursued in the sciences.\u00a0 It wasn\u2019t a hard sell, as that absurdity was obvious enough to any reasonably intelligent child.\u00a0 Following Ardrey\u2019s lead, a few scientists began to break ranks, particularly in Europe where the Blank Slate had never achieved a level of control comparable to that prevailing in the United States.\u00a0 They included the likes of Konrad Lorenz<\/a> (On Aggression<\/em><\/a>, first published in German in 1963), Desmond Morris<\/a> (The Naked Ape<\/a><\/em>, 1967), Lionel Tiger<\/a> (Men in Groups<\/em><\/a>, 1969), and Robin Fox<\/a> (The Imperial Animal<\/a><\/em>, 1971, with Lionel Tiger).\u00a0 The Blank Slate reaction to these works, not to mention the copious coverage\u00a0of Ardrey and the rest that began appearing in the popular media, was furious.\u00a0 Man and Aggression<\/em><\/a>, a collection of Blank Slater rants directed mainly at Ardrey and Lorenz, with novelist William Golding thrown in for good measure, is an outstanding piece of historical source material documenting that reaction.\u00a0 Edited by Ashley Montagu<\/a> and published in 1968, it typifies the usual Blank Slate MO – attacks on straw men combined with accusations of racism and fascism.\u00a0 That, of course, remains the MO of the “progressive” Left to this day.<\/p>\n

The Blank Slaters could intimidate the scientific community, but not so the public at large.\u00a0 Thanks to Ardrey and the rest, by the mid-70s the behavioral sciences were in danger of becoming a laughing stock.\u00a0 Finally, in 1975, E. O. Wilson<\/a> broke ranks and published Sociobiology<\/a><\/em>, a book that was later to gain a\u00a0notoriety in the manufactured “history” of the Blank Slate out of all proportion to its real significance.\u00a0\u00a0Of the 27 chapters, 25\u00a0dealt with animal behavior.\u00a0 Only the first and last chapters focused on human behavior.\u00a0 Nothing in those two chapters, nor in Wilson’s On Human Nature<\/em>, published in 1978, could reasonably be described as other than an afterthought to the works of Ardrey and others that had appeared much earlier as far as human nature is concerned.\u00a0 Its real novelty wasn’t its content, but the fact that it was the first popular science book asserting the existence and importance of human nature by a scientist<\/em> in the United States that reached a significant audience.\u00a0 This fact was well known to Wilson, not to mention his many Blank Slate detractors.\u00a0 In their diatribe Against Sociobiology<\/em><\/a>, which appeared in the New York Review of Books in 1975 they wrote, “From Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase \u201csurvival of the fittest,\u201d to Konrad Lorenz, Robert Ardrey<\/strong>, and now E. O. Wilson, we have seen proclaimed the primacy of natural selection in determining most important characteristics of human behavior.<\/p>\n

As we know in retrospect, the Blank Slaters were facing a long, losing battle against recognition of the obvious.\u00a0 By the end of the 1990s, even the editors at PBS began scurrying off the sinking ship.\u00a0 Finally, in the scientific shambles left in the aftermath of the collapse of the Blank Slate orthodoxy, Steven Pinker<\/a> published his The Blank Slate<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 It was the first major attempt at historical revisionism by a scientist, and it contained most of the fairytales about the affair that are now widely accepted as fact.\u00a0 I had begun reading the works of Ardrey, Lorenz and the rest in the\u00a0early 70s, and had followed the subsequent unraveling of the Blank Slate with interest.\u00a0 When I began reading The Blank Slate<\/em>, I assumed I would find a vindication of the seminal role\u00a0they had played\u00a0in the 1960s in bringing about its demise.\u00a0 I was stunned to find that, instead, as far as Pinker was concerned, the 60s never happened!\u00a0 Ardrey was mentioned only a single time, and then only with the assertion that “the sociobiologists themselves” had declared\u00a0him and Lorenz\u00a0“totally and utterly” wrong!\u00a0 The “sociobiologist” given as the source for this amazing assertion was none other than Richard Dawkins<\/a>!\u00a0 Other than the fact that Dawkins was never a “sociobiologist,” and especially not in 1972 when he published The Selfish Gene<\/a><\/em>, the book from which the “totally and utterly wrong” quote was lifted, he actually praised Ardrey in other parts of the book.\u00a0 He never claimed that Ardrey and the rest were “totally and utterly wrong” because they defended the importance of innate human nature, in Ardrey’s case the overriding theme of all his work.\u00a0 Rather, Dawkins limited that claim to their support of group selection<\/strong><\/a>, a fact that Pinker never gets around to mentioning in The Blank Slate<\/em>.\u00a0 Dropping Ardrey, Lorenz and the rest down the memory hole, Pinker went on to assert that none other than Wilson had been the real knight in shining armor who had brought down the Blank Slate.\u00a0 As readers who have followed this blog for a while are aware, the kicker came in 2012, in the form of E. O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of Earth<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 In the crowning (and amusing) irony of this whole shabby affair, Wilson outed himself as more “totally and utterly wrong” than Ardrey and Lorenz by a long shot.\u00a0 He wholeheartedly embraced – group selection!<\/em><\/p>\n

Which finally brings me to the latest episode in the readjustment of Blank Slate history.\u00a0 It turned up recently\u00a0in the form of a PBS special entitled, E. O. Wilson – Of Ants and Men<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 It’s a testament to the fact that Pinker’s deification of Wilson has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.\u00a0 The only problem is that now it appears he is in danger of being tossed on the garbage heap of history himself.\u00a0 You see, the editors at the impeccably politically correct PBS picked up on the fact that, at least according to Wilson,\u00a0group selection is responsible for the innate wellsprings of selflessness, love of others, at least in the ingroup, altruism, and all the other endearing characteristics that make the hearts of the stalwart leftists who call the tune at PBS\u00a0go pitter-pat.\u00a0 Pinker, on the other hand, for reasons that should be obvious by now, must continue to reject group selection, lest his freely concocted “history” become a laughing stock.\u00a0 To see how all this plays out circa 2015, let’s take a closer look at the\u00a0video itself.<\/p>\n

Before I begin, I wish to assure the reader that I have the highest respect for Wilson himself.\u00a0 He is a great scientist, and his publication of Sociobiology<\/em> was an act of courage regardless of its subsequent exploitation by historical revisionists.\u00a0 As we shall see, he has condoned the portrayal of himself as the “knight in shining armor” invented by Pinker, but that is a forgivable lapse by an aging scientist who is no doubt flattered by the “legacy” manufactured for him.<\/p>\n

With that, on to the video.\u00a0 It doesn’t take long for us to run into the first artifact of the Wilson legend.\u00a0 At the 3:45 minute mark, none other than Pinker himself appears, informing us that Wilson, “changed the intellectual landscape by challenging the taboo against discussing human nature.”\u00a0 He did no such thing.\u00a0 Ardrey had very effectively “challenged the taboo” in 1961 with his publication of African Genesis<\/em>, and many others had challenged it in the subsequent years before publication of Sociobiology<\/em>.\u00a0 Pinker’s statement isn’t even accurate in terms of U.S. scientists, as several of them in peripheral fields such as political science, had insisted on the existence and importance of human nature long before 1975, and others, like Tiger and Fox, although foreign born, had worked at U.S. universities.\u00a0 At the 4:10 mark Gregory Carr chimes in with the remarkable assertion that,<\/p>\n

\u00a0If someone develops a theory about human nature or biodiversity, and in common living rooms across the world, it seems like common sense, but in fact, a generation ago, we didn’t understand it, it tells you that that person, in this case Ed Wilson, has changed the way all of us view the world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One can but shake one’s head at such egregious nonsense.\u00a0 In the first place, Wilson didn’t “develop a theory about human nature.”\u00a0 He simply repeated hypotheses that Darwin himself and many others since him had developed.\u00a0 There is nothing of any significance about human nature\u00a0in any of his books that cannot also be found in the works of Ardrey.\u00a0 People “in common living rooms” a generation ago understood and accepted the concept of human nature perfectly well.\u00a0 The only ones who were still delusional about it at the time were the so-called “experts” in the behavioral sciences.\u00a0 Many of them were also just as aware as Wilson of the absurdity of the Blank Slate dogmas, but were too intimidated to challenge them.<\/p>\n

My readers should be familiar by now with such attempts to inflate Wilson’s historical role, and the reasons for them.\u00a0 The tribe of behavioral scientists has never been able to bear the thought that their “science” was not “self-correcting,” and they would probably still be peddling the Blank Slate dogmas to this day if it weren’t for\u00a0the “mere playwright,” Ardrey.\u00a0 All their attempts at historical obfuscation won’t alter that fact, and source material is there in abundance to prove it to anyone who has the patience to search it out and look at it.\u00a0 We first get an inkling of the real novelty in this particular PBS offering at around minute 53:15, when Wilson, referring to eusociality<\/a> in ant colonies, remarks,<\/p>\n

This capacity of an insect colony to act like a single super-organism became very important to me when I began to reconsider evolutionary theory later in my career.\u00a0 It made me wonder if natural selection could operate not only on individuals and their genes, but on the colony as a whole.\u00a0 That idea would create quite a stir when I published it, but that was much later.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which brings us to the most amusing plot twist in this whole, sorry farce; PBS\u2019 wholehearted embrace of group selection.\u00a0 Recall that Pinker\u2019s whole rationalization for ignoring Ardrey was based on some good things\u00a0Ardrey had to say about group selection in his third book, The Social Contract.\u00a0 The subject hardly ever came up in his interviews, and was certainly not the central theme of all his books, which, as noted above,\u00a0was the existence and significance of human nature.\u00a0 Having used group selection to declare Ardrey an unperson, Pinker then elevated Wilson to the role of the \u201crevolutionary\u201d who was the \u201creal destroyer\u201d of the Blank Slate in his place.\u00a0 Wilson, in turn, in what must have seemed to Pinker a supreme act of ingratitude, embraced group selection more decisively than Ardrey ever thought of doing, making it a central and indispensable pillar of his theory regarding the evolution of eusociality.\u00a0 Here\u2019s how the theme plays out in the video.<\/p>\n

Wilson at 1:09:50<\/p>\n

Humans don\u2019t have to be taught to cooperate.\u00a0 We do it instinctively.\u00a0 Evolution has hardwired us for cooperation.\u00a0 That\u2019s the key to eusociality.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wilson at 1:13:40<\/p>\n

Thinking on this remarkable fact (the evolution of eusociality) has made me reconsider in recent years the theory of natural selection and how it works in complex social animals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pinker at 1:18:50<\/p>\n

Starting in the 1960s, a number of biologists realized that if you think rigorously about what natural selection does, it operates on replicators. Natural selection, Darwin\u2019s theory, is the theory of what happens when you have an entity that can make a copy of itself, and so it\u2019s very clear that the obvious target of selection in Darwin\u2019s theory is the gene. That became close to a consensus among evolutionary biologists, but I think it\u2019s fair to say that Ed Wilson was always ambivalent about that turn in evolutionary theory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

1:19:35 Wilson:<\/p>\n

I never doubted that natural selection works on individual genes or that kin selection is a reality, but I could never accept that that is the whole story. Our group instincts, and those of other eusocial species, go far beyond the urge to protect our immediate kin. After a lifetime studying ant societies, it seemed to me that the group must also have an important role in evolution, whether or not its members are related to each other.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

1:20:15 Jonathan Haidt<\/a>:<\/p>\n

So there\u2019ve been a few revolutions in evolutionary thinking. One of them happened in the 1960s and \u201870s, and it was really captured in Dawkins famous book \u2018The Selfish Gene,\u2019 where if you just take the gene\u2019s eye view, you have the simplest elements, and then you sort of build up from there, and that works great for most animals, but Ed was studying ants, and of course you can make the gene\u2019s eye view work for ants, but when you\u2019re studying ants, you don\u2019t see the ant as the individual, you don\u2019t see the ant as the organism, you see the colony or the hive as the entity that really matters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At\u00a01:20:55 Wilson finally spells it out:<\/p>\n

Once you see a social insect colony as a superorganism, the idea that selection must work on the group as well as on the individual follows very naturally. This realization transformed my perspective on humanity, too. So I proposed an idea that goes all the way back to Darwin. It\u2019s called group selection<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

1:22:20 Haidt:<\/p>\n

Ed was able to see group selection in action. It\u2019s just so clear in the ants, the bees, the wasps, the termites and the humans.\u201d Wilson: \u201cThe fact of group selection gives rise to what I call multilevel evolution, in which natural selection is operating both at the level of the individual and the level of the group… And that got Ed into one of the biggest debates of his career, over multilevel selection, or group selection.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

1:23:20 Pinker:<\/p>\n

Ed Wilson did not give up the idea that selection acted on groups, while most of his fellow biologists did. Then several decades later, revived that notion in a full-throated manifesto, which I think it would be an understatement to say that he did not convince his fellow biologists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At this point, a picture of Wilson’s\u00a0The Social Conquest of Earth<\/em>, appears on the screen, shortly followed by stills of a scowling Richard Dawkins.\u00a0 Then\u00a0we see an image of the cover of his The Selfish Gene<\/em>.\u00a0 The film\u00a0describes Dawkins furious attack on Wilson for daring to promote group selection.<\/p>\n

1:24:10 Wilson:<\/p>\n

The brouhaha over group selection has brought me into conflict with defenders of the old faith, like Richard Dawkins and many others who believe that ultimately the only thing that counts in the evolution of complex behavior, is the gene, the selfish gene. They believe the gene\u2019s eye view of social evolution can explain all of our groupish behavior. I do not.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And finally, at 1:25, after Wilson notes Pinker is one of his opponents, Pinker\u00a0reappears to\u00a0deny the existence of\u00a0group selection:<\/p>\n

Most people would say that, if there’s a burning building, and your child is in one room and another child is in another room, then you are entitled to rescue your child first,\u00a0right?\u00a0\u00a0There is\u00a0 a special bond between, say, parents and children.\u00a0 This is exactly what an evolutionary biologist would predict because any gene that would make you favor your child will have a copy of itself sitting in the body of that child.\u00a0 By rescuing your child the gene for rescuing children, so to speak, will be helping a copy of itself, and so those genes would proliferate in the population.\u00a0 Not just the extreme case of saving your child from a burning building but for being generous and loyal to your siblings, your very close cousins.\u00a0 The basis of tribalism, kinship, family feelings, have a perfectly sensible sensible evolutionary basis.\u00a0 (i.e., kin selection)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At this point one can imagine Pinker gazing sadly at the tattered remains of his whole, manufactured \u201chistory\u201d of the Blank Slate lying about like a collapsed house of cards, faced with the bitter realization that he had created a monster.\u00a0 Wilson\u2019s group selection schtick was just too good for PBS to pass up.\u00a0 I seriously doubt whether any of their editors really understand the subject well enough to come up with a reasoned opinion about it one way or the other.\u00a0 However, how can you turn your nose up at group selection if, as Wilson claims, it is responsible for altruism and all the other \u201cgood\u201d aspects of our nature, whereas the types of selection favored by Pinker, not to mention Dawkins, are responsible for selfishness and all the other \u201cbad\u201d parts of our nature?<\/p>\n

And what of Ardrey, whose good words about group selection no longer seem quite as “totally and utterly wrong” as Pinker suggested when he swept him under the historical rug?\u00a0 Have the editors at PBS ever even heard of him?\u00a0 We know very well that they have, and that they are also perfectly well aware of his historical significance, because they went to the trouble of devoting a significant amount of time to him in another recent special covering the discovery of Homo naledi<\/em>.\u00a0 It took the form of a bitter denunciation of Ardrey for supporting the “Killer Ape Theory,” a term invented by the Blank Slaters of yore to ridicule the notion that pre-human apes hunted and killed during the evolutionary transition from ape to man.\u00a0 This revealing lapse demonstrated the continuing strength of the obsession with the “unperson” Ardrey, the man who was “totally and utterly wrong.”\u00a0 That obsession continues, not only among ancient, unrepentant Blank Slaters, but among behavioral scientists in general who happen to be old enough to know the truth about what happened in the 15 years before Wilson published Sociobiology, in spite of Pinker’s earnest attempt to turn that era into an historical “Blank Slate.”<\/p>\n

Dragging in Ardrey was\u00a0revealing because, in the first place, it was irrelevant in the context of a special about Homo naledi<\/em>.\u00a0 As far as I know, no one has\u00a0published any theories about the hunting behavior of that species one way or the other.\u00a0 It was revealing in the second place because of the absurdity of bringing up the “Killer Ape Theory” at all.\u00a0 That straw man was invented back in the 60s, when it was universally believed, even by Ardrey himself, that chimpanzees were, as Ashley Montagu put it, “non-aggressive vegetarians.”\u00a0 That notion, however, was\u00a0demolished by Jane Goodall, who observed chimpanzees both hunting and killing, not to mention their capacity for extremely aggressive behavior.\u00a0 Today, few people like to mention the vicious, ad hominem<\/em> attacks she was subjected to at the time for publishing those discoveries, although\u00a0those attacks, too, are amply documented\u00a0for anyone who cares to look for them.\u00a0 In the ensuing years, even the impeccably PC Scientific American<\/em> has admitted the reality of hunting behavior in early man.\u00a0 In other words, the “Killer Ape Theory” debate has long been over, and Ardrey, who spelled out his ideas on the subject in his last book, The Hunting Hypothesis<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0won it hands down.<\/p>\n

Why does all this matter?\u00a0 It seems to me the integrity of historical truth is worth defending in its own right.\u00a0 Beyond that, there is much to learn from the Blank Slate affair and its aftermath regarding the integrity of science itself.\u00a0 It is not invariably self-correcting.\u00a0 It can become derailed, and occasionally outsiders must play an indispensable role in putting it back on the tracks.\u00a0 Ideology can trump reason and common sense, and it did in the behavioral sciences for a period of more than half a century.\u00a0 Science is not infallible.\u00a0 In spite of that, it is still the best way of ferreting out the truth our species has managed to come up with so far.\u00a0 We can\u2019t just turn our back on it, because, at least in my opinion, all of the alternatives are even worse.\u00a0 As we do science, however, it would behoove us to maintain a skeptical attitude and watch for signs of ideology leaking through the cracks.<\/p>\n

I note in passing that excellent readings of all of Ardrey’s books are now available at Audible.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tTweet<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The history of the rise and fall of the Blank Slate is fascinating, and not only as an example of the pathological derailment of whole branches of science in favor of ideological dogmas.\u00a0 The continuing foibles of the \u201cmen of science\u201d as they attempt to \u201creadjust\u201d that history are nearly as interesting in their own … Continue reading “Of Ants and Men: More PBS Adventures in Rearranging Blank Slate History”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[281,101,181,48,105,109,297,28,272,187,198],"tags":[195,324],"class_list":["post-4713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aggression","category-anthropology","category-blank-slate","category-evolution","category-evolutionary-psychology-2","category-group-selection","category-historical-revisionism","category-human-nature","category-hunting-hypothesis","category-kin-selection","category-robert-ardrey","tag-group-selection-2","tag-robert-ardrey"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pwEq0-1e1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4713","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4713"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4713\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4727,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4713\/revisions\/4727"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/helian.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}