Glitch in the system? Effective range limitations? Biologically, doesn't natural selection benefit a species overall more than each and every member of that species? Sh*t happens.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Jun 19th, 2010 at 11:59 AM
there is actually a fairly large literature on the "arms-race" between lying and deception and the ability to detect these things and forms of social control like gossip.
evolution priming certain behaviour or selecting pro-social behaviours is relative to other animals. It doesn't mean we still aren't victim to anxiety, grief, envy or fits of rage, just that there are more controls neurologically and socially that make that type of behaviour much more costly and much less beneficial than they might be in animals without such societies.
Its like chimps, ya? they have a form of nearly democratic conflict resolution and authority hirearchies. Because child rearing is so demanding as to produce a gendered division of labour, chimps need to live in a society, much like early humans would have, thus, as Red Nemesis was saying, any genetic bahaviour that totally broke society down would never prosper.
EDIT: the reason back-stabbing can occur is because it can normally be accomplished without people knowing or without having a totally destructive force on society. There is also the fact that in most situations, psychology and context will be a greater determinant of behaviour than genetics, imho.
But doesn't sleezy, under-handed scheming and plotting of that sort conflict with "natural instincts that reduce in-group inhospitability torwards one another"?
like i said, its all relative. Neither are absolutes about human nature, but refer to our species and how we behave with eachother, versus those that have intense conflict between members of their species or much more rudimentary social interactions.
The complexity of human society ensured that we are much less likely to follow those backstabbing instincts, especially as they become more and more violent, than, say, a badger or even chimps, but as individuals we are still victim to having our emotions or instincts override our ability to surpress these things.
I watch a lot of shows on Discovery and History about human evolution, and the professors they interview can't agree. They either think humans are a violent savage species with the ability to reason, or a peaceful utopian species, and that violence is only commited by bad apples. The division seems to be about 50/50. So whenever someone says "Humans are a _____ species", I always think of the millions of counter-examples.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Well, that is one of the big philosophical questions. However I wasn't aware of such a divide, I think the answer lies somewhere in between, and I definitely haven't heard the "peaceful utopian species" heard from a biologist, ever.
Because those are my words, summing up what they say. And yeah, watch those shows. About half of the prof's think violence is an aberration among humans; that its not natural.
hahaha, ya, pick a couple of topics I have too much to say about. lol
I don't tend to think anthropology explains things at the right level to explain violence, especially this type of interpersonal backstabbing. I might critique some of its methods or what have you, but ultimately, I think psychology is much more informative of why people behave the way they do.
Evolutionary psych is a tough one. Its something I'm fascinated with, but the entire field suffers from some serious problems. A lot of their theories tend to be very tautological (it evolved because it was an advantage because it evolved...) or in no sense do they have actual archeological or genetic data to compare our neurology to. It is all grand theories of what might have been beneficial in what contexts, with very little serious evidence that, to evolutionary biologist, especially in genetics, would constitute a particular behaviour as having evolved for a particular purpose.
I don't think a lot of the theories are wrong, just that they are untestable. I favor an approach closer to "functionalism", where thinking about evolution is a large part, but not fundamental to the paradigm. LOL, i can differentiate between the two if its interesting to you.
I hope so! lol
obviously you are getting my opinion. I don't think, especially when you get to cognitive-neuro perspective, that you can say people have a tendency for or against violence, just sort of in general.
people's behaviour is based on thousands of variables, but I would think violence is going to stem from immediate social conditions, be it defending oneself or robbing to eat. Obviously there are other motivators, but I think the most common is going to be immediate context.
Violence is just a part of the human condition, for better or worse. Think of it this way, even these utopians would have to admit that violence serves highly beneficial purposes. Hunting, defending oneself and kin, gaining terrirory and resources. These would all be helpful and ingrained in our genetics as much as our propensity to try and defend our kin and ingroups.
I'd really be shocked to hear a psychologist say that people are naturally non-violent... it wouldn't be the strangest thing ever, but it is very naieve
Getting back to a topic from a while ago, and this is primarily directed at inimilist from our conversation a while back, I guess I just can't bring myself to believe something (or someone) is intrinsically good or evil in an objective sense. I have no problem saying Hitler wasn't at fault for any of his actions. I am an advocate of no-fault determinism, in which there is no such thing as blame, fault, right/wrong, etc. and justice is doled out on the basis of its ability to protect others from future harm, not as a punishment to the "criminal" (which I use in a loose sense here).
So, if a person is forcefully invading the freedom of others (enslaving, stealing, killing, etc.) he or she needs to be detained or killed according to the crime. By invading the freedoms of others to serve yourself, you forfeit your own. But you are no more "at fault" for the action than an apple is for falling to the ground when it breaks from a tree.
So certainly we can identify that which is conducive to suffering in any context, and you can try to label it as immoral in an objective sense. But insofar as morality is a human construct, and suffering a subjective experience, I don't think it's possible to make anything truly objective, not only from our limited perception but ever.
However, I think we're in agreement that avoiding and preventing suffering (as defined subjectively by the person experiencing something) is a valid moral goal. So the big stuff is there, just not the details.
thats how ive thought for a while- when ever i would get into even the slightest discussion with (for the most part) my religious friends, they would end it by saying "well you need faith", but i could say what you said in a much less sophisticated way because my vocabulary isnt as good as yours. Having faith just to have it is pretty absurd.
oh, and one day i was talking to my sister, when i was about 12 or 13, and she brought up the fact she was an atheist. Im not going to lie, it scared me when she said it, and it just made me think about religion and god wayyyy more. I just kept questioning things, and it made me the atheist i am today. Its cool that you guys can openly talk about things like this, because in my school and where i live i get A LOT of crap about not believing in god.
__________________ -thanks scythe, you make some great sigs
Last edited by Sappho on Jul 16th, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Doubt it. In some sectors of the country, atheists are among the most marginalized minorities. Several US states still have laws on the books that make it impossible for atheists to hold office, and community pressure, ridicule, and fear is not uncommon in parts of the south.
Or simply the feeling of awkwardness that accompanies religious moments. My mom makes it a point to emphasize the 'God' in "God Bless You" when I sneeze, relatives question my lack of involvement in holiday prayers, and members of the community regularly question me about my lack of attendance at my old church. And I live in as liberal an area as one can expect outside of the extreme coastal cities. I'd never claim overt persecution, but it's far from a non-issue.
I also have access more formal sources that can back these claims if needed, aside from anecdotal evidence from my own experiences.
It's not everywhere, granted, and there are exceptions to any trend, but it can be difficult if you live in a place that is saturated with devout theism.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 19th, 2010 07:00 AM
-thanks scythe, you make some great sigs
