Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I did, and there's no scientific explaination for letting someone you don't know, know that they dropped something. There's no incentive there; its being nice for its own sake.
I realize its not perfect, but it gives you a look at how biological systems can work together to achieve a goal, with both dynamics of helping someone and cheating. Both sides work together.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And a stranger is not in your group. They're....a stranger, an "outsider".
because in groups are socially and not genetically defined, the fact that we are no longer tribalistic pre-civilized (possibly even proto-human) man, where this would have evolved, and that we teach children that all people are the same indicates that the "in group" has been expanded.
People can have in groups at many different levels, thus many "in groups" that they belong to that can overlap in many ways. Also, in group is not the same thing as "circle of friends".
There is a lot of stuff about schemas that, imho, define in groups. I wrote a paper last term about how Disney movies and anthropomorphic animals within them caused animal and human schemas that were close enough that people exposed to them more would be more likely to be vegetarian (re: the animal schema would have been close enough to humans to form an "in group" of species that all had the same moral principals attached to them). Its a tongue in cheek thesis, that has not been tested, but it is 100% supported by data and I would have no problem defending it.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Some one who's name I don't even know is not "in my group".
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Procreation? Just because I help some one on the side of the road who has a flat, doesn't mean I wanna **** them.
ya, wow, jeez, can't argue with that, especially because you have totally understood what I'm saying and have used the concepts I brought up correctly
especially because human beings always are perfectly aware of their motivations for actions, not like there is something called the misattribution error which specifically relates to how poor humans are at determining their or others motivations for action
Originally posted by inimalist
because in groups are socially and not genetically defined, the fact that we are no longer tribalistic pre-civilized (possibly even proto-human) man, where this would have evolved, and that we teach children that all people are the same indicates that the "in group" has been expanded.People can have in groups at many different levels, thus many "in groups" that they belong to that can overlap in many ways. Also, in group is not the same thing as "circle of friends".
There is a lot of stuff about schemas that, imho, define in groups. I wrote a paper last term about how Disney movies and anthropomorphic animals within them caused animal and human schemas that were close enough that people exposed to them more would be more likely to be vegetarian (re: the animal schema would have been close enough to humans to form an "in group" of species that all had the same moral principals attached to them). Its a tongue in cheek thesis, that has not been tested, but it is 100% supported by data and I would have no problem defending it.
So are you an evolutionary pyschologist or a college kid?
Originally posted by inimalistTo be fair, that argument cuts both ways.
ya, wow, jeez, can't argue with that, especially because you have totally understood what I'm saying and have used the concepts I brought up correctlyespecially because human beings always are perfectly aware of their motivations for actions, not like there is something called the misattribution error which specifically relates to how poor humans are at determining their or others motivations for action
Originally posted by Quiero MotaSo does that one.
So are you an evolutionary pyschologist or a college kid?
ya, whats your point? I hardly think I've portrayed myself as anything different? LOL, these aren't my conclusions. A lot of the findings I talk about bother me too, as they are very critical of the "man as a rational individual" philosophy that I built my political ideology around. If I were pushing an agenda, I'd be very interested in saying that genes aren't responsible for anything.
Originally posted by inimalist
There is a lot of stuff about schemas that, imho, define in groups. I wrote a paper last term about how Disney movies and anthropomorphic animals within them caused animal and human schemas that were close enough that people exposed to them more would be more likely to be vegetarian (re: the animal schema would have been close enough to humans to form an "in group" of species that all had the same moral principals attached to them). Its a tongue in cheek thesis, that has not been tested, but it is 100% supported by data and I would have no problem defending it.
WTF??????
Dude, that sounds a little far fetched. It actually sounds so far fetched that it seems like a joke of sorts.
Vegetarian?
Since this is off topic, if you would like to discuss this further, send my your checking account and routing numbers. We can work it out that way. 313
LOL... 😆
Seriously, you can PM me more details. If your thesis is correct or has merit, that would be mind blowingly awesome...one of those weird, "wtf? that's weird" facts to know.
Originally posted by dadudemonI'd be interested too. It sounds far-fetched, but I'll bet if he wrote a paper he's got some pretty solid defense.
WTF??????Dude, that sounds a little far fetched. It actually sounds so far fetched that it seems like a joke of sorts.
Vegetarian?
Since this is off topic, if you would like to discuss this further, send my your checking account and routing numbers. We can work it out that way. 313
LOL... 😆
Seriously, you can PM me more details. If your thesis is correct or has merit, that would be mind blowingly awesome...one of those weird, "wtf? that's weird" facts to know.
Inimalist, if you feel comfortable sending me your paper please do so. If not I'm interested in whatever enlightenment or sources you can give me.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So are you an evolutionary pyschologist or a college kid?
How many reputable "evolutionary pyschologists" didn't start out as college students? Disregard that no such doctorate exists.
One of the things I notice when I pull the old-man, more experienced card is that I hear the arguments of a younger person and actually remember the information that I've either forgotten or moved so far past. And there is nothing wrong with education.
Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Originally posted by DigiMark007
That's because you're not as loving as most of us. But we already knew that.
The loving part aside, Quiero Mota, I think, despite his fervently held ideology, always asks good questions and rarely holds the answer against anyone. He and I fundamentally disagree on quite a bit, but I still respect him. He doesn't play games.
Originally posted by Devil King
The loving part aside, Quiero Mota, I think, despite his fervently held ideology, always asks good questions and rarely holds the against anyone. He and I fundamentally disagree on quite a bit, but I still respect him. He doesn't plays games.
I agree. He's a great poster and he seems like a genuinely nice guy.