Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

looniverse
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 19 Oct 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 233
Location: Saint Paul

08 Jan 2016, 9:41 am

Edenthiel wrote:
We're still apes. And it seems that as a species we don't quite fit the gorilla social model, nor the chimp one nor bonobo. It would appear we are a mix of them, as if different strains of early hominids intermixed. So my guess is that the arrogant guys are classic Alphas & there is some percent of mainstream culture that also buys into that structure. Just...keep in mind that even in apes with pure Alpha hierarchies, the top ape is only on top for a few years and then typically dies an early death. He's also running full cortisol & adrenaline - in other words, totally stressed about maintaining that position. Meanwhile in those troops the straight Zeta males - plural - each tend to have as much reproductive success as the Alpha - they just do so without the social status & power. Should tell you something about the (straight) females in such troops, and who they actually prefer, no?



No.

But I only say no for a semantic reason. I disagree that instinct demonstrates preference. Even if it did, if Alphas and Zetas have equal success (you say "as much reproductive success") then that clearly does NOT demonstrate a preference. It would demonstrate the absence of preference.

If we use that templates for humans that means that just as in other primates, we do not have one overriding preference. There are a variety of individual preferences we have that work toward the goal of continuing the species with a gene pool that is able to maintain enough genetic diversity (for long-term resilience).

I do think the model holds true in general for humans. Social pressure makes the females desire the "cool" breeding member. The females will be very competitive for the attention of the dominant male. They are competing with other females for that, though.

Your less cool males will be able to get the low hanging fruit, as it were, the less successful females. Be careful how far we follow this analogy, though, because with that line of thinking it doesn't take much for people to start saying those zetas are unfit specimens, and they are making the species genetically inferior. Then we really would be just another animal.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: USA

08 Jan 2016, 9:58 am

looniverse wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
We're still apes. And it seems that as a species we don't quite fit the gorilla social model, nor the chimp one nor bonobo. It would appear we are a mix of them, as if different strains of early hominids intermixed. So my guess is that the arrogant guys are classic Alphas & there is some percent of mainstream culture that also buys into that structure. Just...keep in mind that even in apes with pure Alpha hierarchies, the top ape is only on top for a few years and then typically dies an early death. He's also running full cortisol & adrenaline - in other words, totally stressed about maintaining that position. Meanwhile in those troops the straight Zeta males - plural - each tend to have as much reproductive success as the Alpha - they just do so without the social status & power. Should tell you something about the (straight) females in such troops, and who they actually prefer, no?



No.

But I only say no for a semantic reason. I disagree that instinct demonstrates preference. Even if it did, if Alphas and Zetas have equal success (you say "as much reproductive success") then that clearly does NOT demonstrate a preference. It would demonstrate the absence of preference.

If we use that templates for humans that means that just as in other primates, we do not have one overriding preference. There are a variety of individual preferences we have that work toward the goal of continuing the species with a gene pool that is able to maintain enough genetic diversity (for long-term resilience).

I do think the model holds true in general for humans. Social pressure makes the females desire the "cool" breeding member. The females will be very competitive for the attention of the dominant male. They are competing with other females for that, though.

Your less cool males will be able to get the low hanging fruit, as it were, the less successful females. Be careful how far we follow this analogy, though, because with that line of thinking it doesn't take much for people to start saying those zetas are unfit specimens, and they are making the species genetically inferior. Then we really would be just another animal.

And I agree with most of what you said, except for the last sentence. We are animals. Just because we slap clothes on and use tools doesn't change the fact that we run on animal behavior. Me personally, I'd rather be naked with no tools and be surrounded by humans that understood the bigger picture than just following their animal instinct to consume.



Hyperborean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 956
Location: Europe

08 Jan 2016, 10:02 am

Jamesy wrote:
I am what society would label a 'nerd' so I ain't cool.


Actually nerds are pretty cool (that's a compliment Jamesy :) )


_________________
'All that we see is but a shadow and reflection of what is hidden from our eyes'
Vladimir Solovyëv

'Wo viel Licht ist, ist auch viel Schatten'.
Goethe

'Demain était déjà très loin'.
Julien Gracq
Un balcon en forêt

'Aș vrea să pot să locuiesc în propriile mele cuvinte ...'
Nichita Stănescu
O confesiune

'Once one has learnt to pay attention to the characteristic manifestations of autism, one realises that they are not at all rare'.
Hans Asperger


looniverse
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 19 Oct 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 233
Location: Saint Paul

08 Jan 2016, 10:04 am

Aristophanes wrote:
looniverse wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
We're still apes. And it seems that as a species we don't quite fit the gorilla social model, nor the chimp one nor bonobo. It would appear we are a mix of them, as if different strains of early hominids intermixed. So my guess is that the arrogant guys are classic Alphas & there is some percent of mainstream culture that also buys into that structure. Just...keep in mind that even in apes with pure Alpha hierarchies, the top ape is only on top for a few years and then typically dies an early death. He's also running full cortisol & adrenaline - in other words, totally stressed about maintaining that position. Meanwhile in those troops the straight Zeta males - plural - each tend to have as much reproductive success as the Alpha - they just do so without the social status & power. Should tell you something about the (straight) females in such troops, and who they actually prefer, no?



No.

But I only say no for a semantic reason. I disagree that instinct demonstrates preference. Even if it did, if Alphas and Zetas have equal success (you say "as much reproductive success") then that clearly does NOT demonstrate a preference. It would demonstrate the absence of preference.

If we use that templates for humans that means that just as in other primates, we do not have one overriding preference. There are a variety of individual preferences we have that work toward the goal of continuing the species with a gene pool that is able to maintain enough genetic diversity (for long-term resilience).

I do think the model holds true in general for humans. Social pressure makes the females desire the "cool" breeding member. The females will be very competitive for the attention of the dominant male. They are competing with other females for that, though.

Your less cool males will be able to get the low hanging fruit, as it were, the less successful females. Be careful how far we follow this analogy, though, because with that line of thinking it doesn't take much for people to start saying those zetas are unfit specimens, and they are making the species genetically inferior. Then we really would be just another animal.

And I agree with most of what you said, except for the last sentence. We are animals. Just because we slap clothes on and use tools doesn't change the fact that we run on animal behavior. Me personally, I'd rather be naked with no tools and be surrounded by humans that understood the bigger picture than just following their animal instinct to consume.


I did not say just an animal, I said just another animal.

You may not believe there is a distinction there, but I believe there is. I believe we are an animal with the ability to defy instinct through adherence to reason.

If we are remiss in that adherence then we really are just another animal.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: USA

08 Jan 2016, 11:04 am

looniverse wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
looniverse wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
We're still apes. And it seems that as a species we don't quite fit the gorilla social model, nor the chimp one nor bonobo. It would appear we are a mix of them, as if different strains of early hominids intermixed. So my guess is that the arrogant guys are classic Alphas & there is some percent of mainstream culture that also buys into that structure. Just...keep in mind that even in apes with pure Alpha hierarchies, the top ape is only on top for a few years and then typically dies an early death. He's also running full cortisol & adrenaline - in other words, totally stressed about maintaining that position. Meanwhile in those troops the straight Zeta males - plural - each tend to have as much reproductive success as the Alpha - they just do so without the social status & power. Should tell you something about the (straight) females in such troops, and who they actually prefer, no?



No.

But I only say no for a semantic reason. I disagree that instinct demonstrates preference. Even if it did, if Alphas and Zetas have equal success (you say "as much reproductive success") then that clearly does NOT demonstrate a preference. It would demonstrate the absence of preference.

If we use that templates for humans that means that just as in other primates, we do not have one overriding preference. There are a variety of individual preferences we have that work toward the goal of continuing the species with a gene pool that is able to maintain enough genetic diversity (for long-term resilience).

I do think the model holds true in general for humans. Social pressure makes the females desire the "cool" breeding member. The females will be very competitive for the attention of the dominant male. They are competing with other females for that, though.

Your less cool males will be able to get the low hanging fruit, as it were, the less successful females. Be careful how far we follow this analogy, though, because with that line of thinking it doesn't take much for people to start saying those zetas are unfit specimens, and they are making the species genetically inferior. Then we really would be just another animal.

And I agree with most of what you said, except for the last sentence. We are animals. Just because we slap clothes on and use tools doesn't change the fact that we run on animal behavior. Me personally, I'd rather be naked with no tools and be surrounded by humans that understood the bigger picture than just following their animal instinct to consume.


I did not say just an animal, I said just another animal.

You may not believe there is a distinction there, but I believe there is. I believe we are an animal with the ability to defy instinct through adherence to reason.

If we are remiss in that adherence then we really are just another animal.

Thank you for the clarification. I think I would have caught the connotation had it been a verbal conversation and not text.

I agree, I think there can be a distinction made, but it's not for humanity as a whole. At most maybe 10% can adhere to reason, but not a majority, certainly not all. Society doesn't just keep down the bottom 10% under the assumption they're inferior, it also keeps down the top 10% as well because that group is a threat to existing power structures. It's a mad race towards the middle, where the majority is, and the middle doesn't have reasoning skills-- they're still stuck in the "chasing shiny objects" stage of animal development. I hope humanity progresses, and more brain power is progression; if we look at evolutionary history we see a 540 million year trend of larger cranium capacity in like size animals-- nature itself is driving higher intelligence. If that trend continues we'll be fine, the problem I see is that our technology has developed well past our mass intelligence to use it constructively. It may turn out that we passed an event horizon circa 1945, when we developed the weapons to destroy the world without the mass intelligence to control them.



Outrider
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,007
Location: Australia

13 Jan 2016, 2:42 am

I have heard evolution of humanity has technically reached a point where it has dramatically speeded-up.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

Evidence of this can be seen as our evolution from the Industrial Revolution to now.

In only around 200 years we evolved far more quickly than the previous hundreds.

The most popular noted time-frame is the dramatic changes from 1900 to 2000. While the 1900s shares many similarities with 1600s to 1800s, we're completely different today.

Anyway, my view of humanity as a whole has not been positive or negative but neutral. We have positives, we have flaws, we have signs of intelligence, we're rampant with stupidity.

I sum up my view of humanity in the following words: 'Humans will always be humans, for better or for worse' which is my way of saying 'we're not exactly 'great', we're not exactly 'awful', we're just here.'.



zkydz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2015
Age: 59
Posts: 3,215
Location: USA

13 Jan 2016, 7:57 am

Outrider wrote:
Anyway, my view of humanity as a whole has not been positive or negative but neutral. We have positives, we have flaws, we have signs of intelligence, we're rampant with stupidity.

I sum up my view of humanity in the following words: 'Humans will always be humans, for better or for worse' which is my way of saying 'we're not exactly 'great', we're not exactly 'awful', we're just here.'.

My view of humanity is not so rosy.
There are a lot of misconceptions about animals. "The Noble Animal" and such things. Animals are animals. They rally are not that much different from us.
Every time someone has said "This" separates us from oh, say, chimps.....
Then, they find out, they are wrong.
All animals will expand populations during boom times in food supply, good weather and lack of other natural disasters. They will fill every local niche they can. Then, when things turn bad, they will suffer starvation and other situations that will threaten their survival. Die offs.

Humans are such an animal. The only difference is that instead of reaching a natural equilibrium and then having population corrections, humanity has the ability to massively reshape and reconfigure the environment to accommodate its desires. We re growing in population in such a way that is not sustainable. This includes incredible amounts of change in ecosystems and weather as well as transplantation of organisms to areas that lack the natural environment/predators that will keep a balance in its native lands.

The difference is basically this: All animals have a 'bacterial' quality as to how they spread, multiply and die off. Weather, food supplies and other things are the natural 'antibodies' to these things happening.
Humanity is more 'viral' in that the 'antibodies' do not work on us as a whole.

Much of the denial I hear these days reminds me of Clair Cameron Patterson and his fight against Lead contamination. The denials, the attempts to buy his silence, his funding being pulled because of pressure, the lies, The attempts to ruin his reputation and the pseudoscience that was employed in attempts to debunk him. And, the worst of it all? They tried to say that lead is a 'naturally occurring substance' and therefore could not be a result of their using the contaminants everywhere, paint, makeups, etc.

So, yeah, between the ignorance or willingness/desire to stay ignorant, the lack of critical thought, the lack of perspective or recognition does not fill me with hope.


_________________
Diagnosed April 14, 2016
ASD Level 1 without intellectual impairments.

RAADS-R -- 213.3
FQ -- 18.7
EQ -- 13
Aspie Quiz -- 186 out of 200
AQ: 42
AQ-10: 8.8


looniverse
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 19 Oct 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 233
Location: Saint Paul

13 Jan 2016, 9:06 am

Aristophanes wrote:
looniverse wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
looniverse wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
We're still apes. And it seems that as a species we don't quite fit the gorilla social model, nor the chimp one nor bonobo. It would appear we are a mix of them, as if different strains of early hominids intermixed. So my guess is that the arrogant guys are classic Alphas & there is some percent of mainstream culture that also buys into that structure. Just...keep in mind that even in apes with pure Alpha hierarchies, the top ape is only on top for a few years and then typically dies an early death. He's also running full cortisol & adrenaline - in other words, totally stressed about maintaining that position. Meanwhile in those troops the straight Zeta males - plural - each tend to have as much reproductive success as the Alpha - they just do so without the social status & power. Should tell you something about the (straight) females in such troops, and who they actually prefer, no?



No.

But I only say no for a semantic reason. I disagree that instinct demonstrates preference. Even if it did, if Alphas and Zetas have equal success (you say "as much reproductive success") then that clearly does NOT demonstrate a preference. It would demonstrate the absence of preference.

If we use that templates for humans that means that just as in other primates, we do not have one overriding preference. There are a variety of individual preferences we have that work toward the goal of continuing the species with a gene pool that is able to maintain enough genetic diversity (for long-term resilience).

I do think the model holds true in general for humans. Social pressure makes the females desire the "cool" breeding member. The females will be very competitive for the attention of the dominant male. They are competing with other females for that, though.

Your less cool males will be able to get the low hanging fruit, as it were, the less successful females. Be careful how far we follow this analogy, though, because with that line of thinking it doesn't take much for people to start saying those zetas are unfit specimens, and they are making the species genetically inferior. Then we really would be just another animal.

And I agree with most of what you said, except for the last sentence. We are animals. Just because we slap clothes on and use tools doesn't change the fact that we run on animal behavior. Me personally, I'd rather be naked with no tools and be surrounded by humans that understood the bigger picture than just following their animal instinct to consume.


I did not say just an animal, I said just another animal.

You may not believe there is a distinction there, but I believe there is. I believe we are an animal with the ability to defy instinct through adherence to reason.

If we are remiss in that adherence then we really are just another animal.

Thank you for the clarification. I think I would have caught the connotation had it been a verbal conversation and not text.

I agree, I think there can be a distinction made, but it's not for humanity as a whole. At most maybe 10% can adhere to reason, but not a majority, certainly not all. Society doesn't just keep down the bottom 10% under the assumption they're inferior, it also keeps down the top 10% as well because that group is a threat to existing power structures. It's a mad race towards the middle, where the majority is, and the middle doesn't have reasoning skills-- they're still stuck in the "chasing shiny objects" stage of animal development. I hope humanity progresses, and more brain power is progression; if we look at evolutionary history we see a 540 million year trend of larger cranium capacity in like size animals-- nature itself is driving higher intelligence. If that trend continues we'll be fine, the problem I see is that our technology has developed well past our mass intelligence to use it constructively. It may turn out that we passed an event horizon circa 1945, when we developed the weapons to destroy the world without the mass intelligence to control them.


I occasionally muse that people with autism are necessary for the advancement of the species, a desirable mutation. Unfortunately, the de-emphasis on socialization in favor of logic makes it less likely that those people will produce offspring.

It's kinda like the plot of Idiocracy.

So I turn my musings elsewhere.



looniverse
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 19 Oct 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 233
Location: Saint Paul

13 Jan 2016, 9:13 am

zkydz wrote:
Outrider wrote:
Anyway, my view of humanity as a whole has not been positive or negative but neutral. We have positives, we have flaws, we have signs of intelligence, we're rampant with stupidity.

I sum up my view of humanity in the following words: 'Humans will always be humans, for better or for worse' which is my way of saying 'we're not exactly 'great', we're not exactly 'awful', we're just here.'.

My view of humanity is not so rosy.
There are a lot of misconceptions about animals. "The Noble Animal" and such things. Animals are animals. They rally are not that much different from us.
Every time someone has said "This" separates us from oh, say, chimps.....
Then, they find out, they are wrong.
All animals will expand populations during boom times in food supply, good weather and lack of other natural disasters. They will fill every local niche they can. Then, when things turn bad, they will suffer starvation and other situations that will threaten their survival. Die offs.

Humans are such an animal. The only difference is that instead of reaching a natural equilibrium and then having population corrections, humanity has the ability to massively reshape and reconfigure the environment to accommodate its desires. We re growing in population in such a way that is not sustainable. This includes incredible amounts of change in ecosystems and weather as well as transplantation of organisms to areas that lack the natural environment/predators that will keep a balance in its native lands.

The difference is basically this: All animals have a 'bacterial' quality as to how they spread, multiply and die off. Weather, food supplies and other things are the natural 'antibodies' to these things happening.
Humanity is more 'viral' in that the 'antibodies' do not work on us as a whole.

Much of the denial I hear these days reminds me of Clair Cameron Patterson and his fight against Lead contamination. The denials, the attempts to buy his silence, his funding being pulled because of pressure, the lies, The attempts to ruin his reputation and the pseudoscience that was employed in attempts to debunk him. And, the worst of it all? They tried to say that lead is a 'naturally occurring substance' and therefore could not be a result of their using the contaminants everywhere, paint, makeups, etc.

So, yeah, between the ignorance or willingness/desire to stay ignorant, the lack of critical thought, the lack of perspective or recognition does not fill me with hope.


So you're a pessimist. I'm glad there are optimists out there. Though being a pessimist, you're probably not glad.

I'm a contrarian. I tend to think people are wrong. A lot. I'm sure we have different ideas of what constitutes ignorance.

I don't think we can truly say the growth is unsustainable until it's not. The only thing that we can say is if growth continues as expected, and technology remains unchanged, it will be unsustainable.

That bit about technology remaining unchanged... One look at my typewriter or flip-phone makes that likelihood seem pretty unlikely.



zkydz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2015
Age: 59
Posts: 3,215
Location: USA

13 Jan 2016, 9:19 am

looniverse wrote:
I occasionally muse that people with autism are necessary for the advancement of the species, a desirable mutation. Unfortunately, the de-emphasis on socialization in favor of logic makes it less likely that those people will produce offspring.

I dunno. I gots offspring everywhere and am intentionally curbing it at my age. The lack of socialization does not preclude finding someone, though it does not help. But, favoring logic will not be a factor in that. I have been in family situations where there is a strong value placed on logic and practice it's tenants in basic conversations amongst the family members.


_________________
Diagnosed April 14, 2016
ASD Level 1 without intellectual impairments.

RAADS-R -- 213.3
FQ -- 18.7
EQ -- 13
Aspie Quiz -- 186 out of 200
AQ: 42
AQ-10: 8.8