'Fittest' means 'friendliest,' not 'most aggressive

[DrZoidberg]

This sounds like a pretty straightforward reversal of what you said earlier. Being friendly as the default hardly reflects a "true violent nature".

No, it's not. I also don't think you believe this either. It's pretty clear that you've tried your damndest to misunderstand and twist my words in order to win points in an argument. It's been pretty tiresome. But you've done this in other threads as well. Just stop. Please. You're just wasting everyone's time. It's basically just trolling. The goal isn't to understand. Or you would have asked me to explain the things you thought were unclear. Instead you've put words and meanings in my mouth and argued against a straw man. Many people on forums do it. So you're in good company. But it's pointless. It adds no value, nor understanding.

I'm sorry for being a bit unclear then. I have tried my best though. I'm objecting to portraying nature as a nice place. I think it's a hippie fantasy, and believing in it is dangerous. We don't create a better world by ignoring the darkness. If we do the darkness festers unchecked and we're at an absolute loss when men behave in the way nature intended them to.

Nature doesn't "intend" anymore than it has an end goal. You explicitly make the same fallacy you accuse the article of implicitly engaging in.

I don't understand why you wrote this? I find it hard to believe you're so stupid that you think this is my belief, nor think that's what I actually wrote or intended. So why did you write this? What is your end goal with this type of discussion?

 

[Jokodo]

No, it's not. I also don't think you believe this either. It's pretty clear that you've tried your damndest to misunderstand and twist my words in order to win points in an argument. It's been pretty tiresome. But you've done this in other threads as well. Just stop. Please. You're just wasting everyone's time. It's basically just trolling. The goal isn't to understand. Or you would have asked me to explain the things you thought were unclear. Instead you've put words and meanings in my mouth and argued against a straw man. Many people on forums do it. So you're in good company. But it's pointless. It adds no value, nor understanding.

Stop the whining and stand up for what you actually wrote. "our true violent nature" isn't something I put into your mouth, it is what you actually wrote. The fuller context was "we live in an alien environment that prevents us to live out our true violent nature", in post 50.

It's not unclear, it's just false. Unlike what you seem to believe of yourself, I cannot read minds. I cannot know that you meant the opposite of what you write.

Nature doesn't "intend" anymore than it has an end goal. You explicitly make the same fallacy you accuse the article of implicitly engaging in.

I don't understand why you wrote this? I find it hard to believe you're so stupid that you think this is my belief, nor think that's what I actually wrote or intended. So why did you write this? What is your end goal with this type of discussion?

It is what you actually wrote. I quoted it right above my comment you object to. Here's your words again: "when men behave in the way nature intended them to." (emphasis added)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Stop the whining and stand up for what you actually wrote. "our true violent nature" isn't something I put into your mouth, it is what you actually wrote. The fuller context was "we live in an alien environment that prevents us to live out our true violent nature", in post 50.

It's not unclear, it's just false. Unlike what you seem to believe of yourself, I cannot read minds. I cannot know that you meant the opposite of what you write.

I don't understand why you wrote this? I find it hard to believe you're so stupid that you think this is my belief, nor think that's what I actually wrote or intended. So why did you write this? What is your end goal with this type of discussion?

It is what you actually wrote. I quoted it right above my comment you object to. Here's your words again: "when men behave in the way nature intended them to." (emphasis added)

It's not the opposite of what I wrote. And I think you knew that all along. I think you read it into my words for no reason I can see other than to troll.

Again... what is your end goal with having this type of discussion? What's in it for you? It's not the first time you do it.

 

[Jokodo]

Stop the whining and stand up for what you actually wrote. "our true violent nature" isn't something I put into your mouth, it is what you actually wrote. The fuller context was "we live in an alien environment that prevents us to live out our true violent nature", in post 50.

It's not unclear, it's just false. Unlike what you seem to believe of yourself, I cannot read minds. I cannot know that you meant the opposite of what you write.

I don't understand why you wrote this? I find it hard to believe you're so stupid that you think this is my belief, nor think that's what I actually wrote or intended. So why did you write this? What is your end goal with this type of discussion?

It is what you actually wrote. I quoted it right above my comment you object to. Here's your words again: "when men behave in the way nature intended them to." (emphasis added)

It's not the opposite of what I wrote. And I think you knew that all along. I think you read it into my words for no reason I can see other than to troll.

Again... what is your end goal with having this type of discussion? What's in it for you? It's not the first time you do it.

My "end goal" is to correct your obvious misconceptions about cognitive/behavioral evolution. You've actually retracted some of your more dubious claims, so hopefully you've learnt from this discussion. You just never acknowledge it.

Anyway, you're literally the last person to complain about people reading stuff into your words for no reason. Your entire contribution to this thread consists of reading stuff into the OP article (and my and others' posts) that isn't there, at least not explicitly, and ignoring what it explicitly says.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not the opposite of what I wrote. And I think you knew that all along. I think you read it into my words for no reason I can see other than to troll.

Again... what is your end goal with having this type of discussion? What's in it for you? It's not the first time you do it.

My "end goal" is to correct your obvious misconceptions about cognitive/behavioral evolution. You've actually retracted some of your more dubious claims, so hopefully you've learnt from this discussion. You just never acknowledge it.

Anyway, you're literally the last person to complain about people reading stuff into your words for no reason. Your entire contribution to this thread consists of reading stuff into the OP article (and my and others' posts) that isn't there, at least not explicitly, and ignoring what it explicitly says.

What have I retracted? I've had the same position all along. I think the original article is a feel-good fluff piece, that may or may not have reflected a book that may or may not have been serious science. My position on that hasn't changed. I don't like when science, nature and evolution is misrepresented. No matter if it's for a feel-good cause. It's not friendliness it's opportunism. Often being friendly is the the winning strategy. But often it's not. That's nature. I don't think that was the angle of the article at all. And a lack of violence doesn't mean friendly. I somehow doubt the losers in the bonobo game of politics think that the alpha male and females are friendly.

If there's anything I've said that is "misconceptions about cognitive/behavioral evolution" and they're obvious it should be easy for you to point them out? But that hasn't gone so great for you, has it? Each time you've just reiterated what I said in other words. Looking back at this threat I don't think we, at any point, disagreed about anything. I may have missed something, though? So what exactly are my misconceptions? Since they're obvious it should be easy for you, shouldn't it?

You seem desperate to defend the article, and grasping at straws to do it.

 

[Jokodo]

It's not the opposite of what I wrote. And I think you knew that all along. I think you read it into my words for no reason I can see other than to troll.

Again... what is your end goal with having this type of discussion? What's in it for you? It's not the first time you do it.

My "end goal" is to correct your obvious misconceptions about cognitive/behavioral evolution. You've actually retracted some of your more dubious claims, so hopefully you've learnt from this discussion. You just never acknowledge it.

Anyway, you're literally the last person to complain about people reading stuff into your words for no reason. Your entire contribution to this thread consists of reading stuff into the OP article (and my and others' posts) that isn't there, at least not explicitly, and ignoring what it explicitly says.

What have I retracted? I've had the same position all along.

Only if "our true violent nature" means the same as the first default is be friendly, or if acting in way X "if it's beneficial" is the same as acting in way X in the presence of certain triggers that have historically been correlated with it being beneficial; if "Humans are cooperative and friendly when it's in our best interest." says the same thing as "humans are cooperative and friendly in a wide range of situations where it may or may not be in our best interest, but that contain certain triggers that make our animal brains act as if it were"; only if "the way nature intended" means the same as nature doesn't have intent.

You can call that sloppy wording, but what all of those have in common is that they stink of a teleological conception of evolution. And more often than not, when I corrected your misconception (or "sloppy wording"), you claimed that's exactly what you have been saying when we have your posts, black on white (or whatever color scheme you have chosen in your settings) telling us it isn't.

I think the original article is a feel-good fluff piece, that may or may not have reflected a book that may or may not have been serious science. My position on that hasn't changed. I don't like when science, nature and evolution is misrepresented.

Then don't do it. The article may be guilty of some sloppy wording, but look at yourself!

No matter if it's for a feel-good cause. It's not friendliness it's opportunism. Often being friendly is the the winning strategy. But often it's not.

Exactly. And the point of the article is that we tend to underestimate the degree to which being friendly can be and has been a winning strategy because of a misunderstanding of the term "fittest". Whether that is true or not is a question of sociology, of what the average person believes to understand of the theory of evolution, not a question of biology.

That's nature. I don't think that was the angle of the article at all. And a lack of violence doesn't mean friendly. I somehow doubt the losers in the bonobo game of politics think that the alpha male and females are friendly.

If there's anything I've said that is "misconceptions about cognitive/behavioral evolution" and they're obvious it should be easy for you to point them out? But that hasn't gone so great for you, has it? Each time you've just reiterated what I said in other words. Looking back at this threat I don't think we, at any point, disagreed about anything. I may have missed something, though? So what exactly are my misconceptions? Since they're obvious it should be easy for you, shouldn't it?

See above. All direct quotes.

You seem desperate to defend the article, and grasping at straws to do it.

I barely even referenced the article. It was your simplistic proclamations that have been the focus of my objections.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Only if "our true violent nature" means the same as the first default is be friendly, or if acting in way X "if it's beneficial" is the same as acting in way X in the presence of certain triggers that have historically been correlated with it being beneficial; if "Humans are cooperative and friendly when it's in our best interest." says the same thing as "humans are cooperative and friendly in a wide range of situations where it may or may not be in our best interest, but that contain certain triggers that make our animal brains act as if it were"; only if "the way nature intended" means the same as nature doesn't have intent.

You can call that sloppy wording, but what all of those have in common is that they stink of a teleological conception of evolution. And more often than not, when I corrected your misconception (or "sloppy wording"), you claimed that's exactly what you have been saying when we have your posts, black on white (or whatever color scheme you have chosen in your settings) telling us it isn't.

I don't think it's sloppy wording. I think it's you trying your damndest to interpret it in a way that justifys you getting on a high horse and staying there. If you would have given it any thought at all I think you would have understood what I meant. Just get the fuck off your high horse. It doesn't become you, and you certainly haven't earned a seat on it

I think the original article is a feel-good fluff piece, that may or may not have reflected a book that may or may not have been serious science. My position on that hasn't changed. I don't like when science, nature and evolution is misrepresented.

Then don't do it. The article may be guilty of some sloppy wording, but look at yourself!

Then why are you defending the article?

No matter if it's for a feel-good cause. It's not friendliness it's opportunism. Often being friendly is the the winning strategy. But often it's not.

Exactly. And the point of the article is that we tend to underestimate the degree to which being friendly can be and has been a winning strategy because of a misunderstanding of the term "fittest". Whether that is true or not is a question of sociology, of what the average person believes to understand of the theory of evolution, not a question of biology.

And I didn't like it. You did. Whoopdie do. The argument could have ended there.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't think it's sloppy wording. I think it's you trying your damndest to interpret it in a way that justifys you getting on a high horse and staying there. If you would have given it any thought at all I think you would have understood what I meant. Just get the fuck off your high horse. It doesn't become you, and you certainly haven't earned a seat on it

Then don't do it. The article may be guilty of some sloppy wording, but look at yourself!

Then why are you defending the article?

No matter if it's for a feel-good cause. It's not friendliness it's opportunism. Often being friendly is the the winning strategy. But often it's not.

Exactly. And the point of the article is that we tend to underestimate the degree to which being friendly can be and has been a winning strategy because of a misunderstanding of the term "fittest". Whether that is true or not is a question of sociology, of what the average person believes to understand of the theory of evolution, not a question of biology.

And I didn't like it. You did. Whoopdie do. The argument could have ended there.

The argument wouldn't even have started if you refrained from misrepresenting other people's arguments left and right.

I didn't even say that I liked the article. I said you're misrepresenting it, which you are.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I didn't even say that I liked the article. I said you're misrepresenting it, which you are.

It must be windy there... in your glass house.

 

[Jokodo]

I didn't even say that I liked the article. I said you're misrepresenting it, which you are.

It must be windy there... in your glass house.

I know, it's hard to admit that you've said something stupid, even harder if you have a bad case of Dunning-Kruger's to start with.

Have a beer, chill down, this isn't the end of the world.

 

[Jokodo]

Dr. Zoidberg on misrepresentation:

Not misrepresentation:

• Dr. Zoidberg claiming the article states that aggression is unnatural (despite it saying explicitly it's also there)
• Dr. Zoidberg insisting that I "need a lesson in evolutionary theory" without being able to point to anything I've said that suggests so.
• Dr. Zoidberg claiming Angry Floof implicitly advocates for Lamarckian evolution without being able to point to anything she said that suggests so.
  

Misrepresentation:

• Jokodo quoting verbatim Dr. Zoidberg's words about people "behaving the way nature intended them to" and saying that sounds like he says nature has intent.

You're such a poor victim of mean bully me. I'll cry for you a bit.

 

[Angry Floof]

Dr. Zoidberg on misrepresentation:

Not misrepresentation:

• Dr. Zoidberg claiming the article states that aggression is unnatural (despite it saying explicitly it's also there)
• Dr. Zoidberg insisting that I "need a lesson in evolutionary theory" without being able to point to anything I've said that suggests so.
• Dr. Zoidberg claiming Angry Floof implicitly advocates for Lamarckian evolution without being able to point to anything she said that suggests so.
  

Misrepresentation:

• Jokodo quoting verbatim Dr. Zoidberg's words about people "behaving the way nature intended them to" and saying that sounds like he says nature has intent.

You're such a poor victim of mean bully me. I'll cry for you a bit.

Also, nobody said evolution has intent. "Survival strategy" is just a term meaning whatever behavior, mutation, trait, etc. worked out to not kill us and/or to help us procreate more, and we can only see that after the fact, like we see after the fact how successful friendliness and cooperation have been to our survival and thriving throughout our existence as well as for some of our primate relatives.

 

[skepticalbip]

Dr. Zoidberg on misrepresentation:

Not misrepresentation:

• Dr. Zoidberg claiming the article states that aggression is unnatural (despite it saying explicitly it's also there)
• Dr. Zoidberg insisting that I "need a lesson in evolutionary theory" without being able to point to anything I've said that suggests so.
• Dr. Zoidberg claiming Angry Floof implicitly advocates for Lamarckian evolution without being able to point to anything she said that suggests so.
  

Misrepresentation:

• Jokodo quoting verbatim Dr. Zoidberg's words about people "behaving the way nature intended them to" and saying that sounds like he says nature has intent.

You're such a poor victim of mean bully me. I'll cry for you a bit.

Also, nobody said evolution has intent. "Survival strategy" is just a term meaning whatever behavior, mutation, trait, etc. worked out to not kill us and/or to help us procreate more, and we can only see that after the fact, like we see after the fact how successful friendliness and cooperation have been to our survival and thriving throughout our existence as well as for some of our primate relatives.

There is no question that cooperation has benefited our survival ability but so has aggression and so has running away. What has been the greatest benefit is the awareness to know where cooperation would be beneficial, where aggression would be beneficial, and where running away would be beneficial then going with the best option for the particular situation.

 

[fromderinside]

So there was this domain of psychology concentrating on approach/withdrawal -originally, before Schneirla, it was called approach/avoidance - which dominated behavioral psychology for generations. Can't have cooperation without those both being present first. So those advocating cooperation need take into account how it arises beyond saying "not aggression". Since evolution is built upon what precedes it rather than replacing what precedes it, there is a minimum demand characteristic for such modeling.

I didn't see that in the article which is not a scientific article in the first place, its a Washington Post article. Perhaps someone has read the book? And does the existence of a scientist,or even several scientists as writers make the book scientific? I think I'm falling into the early ethologist study paradigm again. Say science, take down personal data, report? Nope not science.

Just for your amusement "how can one trained in science use oneself as a source?" One can't. For those who don't understand one can not validate a protool written by oneself and used by oneself (self reference, not even rational criterion)

 

[Angry Floof]

If anyone's interested, here's a link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/Survival-Fri...the+Friendliest&qid=1597559047&s=books&sr=1-1

And here's a link to the authors' paper the book is based on:
https://evolutionaryanthropology.du...rvival of friendliest_Annu Rev Psych_2017.pdf

 

[ruby sparks]

There is no question that cooperation has benefited our survival ability but so has aggression and so has running away. What has been the greatest benefit is the awareness to know where cooperation would be beneficial, where aggression would be beneficial, and where running away would be beneficial then going with the best option for the particular situation.

Nicely put, imo.

The only small caveat that I might introduce is whether there's necessarily knowing involved, since a lot of the instincts and many* of the behaviours are more or less automatically triggered. But yes, I know what you mean and am just being a bit pedantic.


* some might say all, if they believe in strong determinism, but let's not get into that.

 

[ruby sparks]

And here's a link to the authors' paper the book is based on:
https://evolutionaryanthropology.du...rvival of friendliest_Annu Rev Psych_2017.pdf

Thanks for posting. I'll earmark that for reading later.

My starting position will be that I feel I could agree that cooperation has been selected for (especially in a social species like ours) but I will be surprised if the paper makes a good case that non-cooperation isn't selected for also. But I will try to have an open mind, and in any case, I am not going to be cynical about or deny the valuable merits of cooperation.

On which note, I think it's important to point out that the opposite of cooperation is not necessarily aggression or violence. It's merely non-cooperation, and might take the form of competition for example, or selfishness.

I admit that right now, I'd have trouble seeing how competitiveness is not selected for (as well as cooperation I mean). So I would not say either are our 'true nature' but rather that our true nature is complicated and variegated, possibly in order to respond to a complicated variegated set of circumstances in the world.

 

[Jokodo]

And here's a link to the authors' paper the book is based on:
https://evolutionaryanthropology.du...rvival of friendliest_Annu Rev Psych_2017.pdf

Thanks for posting. I'll earmark that for reading later.

My starting position will be that I feel I could agree that cooperation has been selected for (especially in a social species like ours) but I will be surprised if the paper makes a good case that non-cooperation isn't selected for also.

Which part of the abstract makes you believe the claim "non-cooperation isn't selected for also" is being made? The claim I see is that our increased pro-sociality relative to other apes is a pivotal agreement to some of the apparently unique aspects of humans such as language and material cumulative culture.

But I will try to have an open mind, and in any case, I am not going to be cynical about or deny the valuable merits of cooperation.

On which note, I think it's important to point out that the opposite of cooperation is not necessarily aggression or violence. It's merely non-cooperation, and might take the form of competition for example, or selfishness.

I admit that right now, I'd have trouble seeing how competitiveness is not selected for (as well as cooperation I mean). So I would not say either are our 'true nature' but rather that our true nature is complicated and variegated, possibly in order to respond to a complicated variegated set of circumstances in the world.

Yes. Who said otherwise?

 

[ruby sparks]

Which part of the abstract makes you believe the claim "non-cooperation isn't selected for also" is being made?

I'm not assuming the paper says that, or even necessarily expecting it to. I can understand if you got that impression from what I said, but maybe I didn't explain myself well when I said I'd be surprised if it made a good case for it. I haven't read the paper yet.

Yes. Who said otherwise?

To me, the first line of the OP seems to suggest it. And to some extent the second line, and maybe the thread title in some ways.

 

[fromderinside]

If anyone's interested, here's a link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/Survival-Fri...the+Friendliest&qid=1597559047&s=books&sr=1-1

And here's a link to the authors' paper the book is based on:
https://evolutionaryanthropology.du...rvival of friendliest_Annu Rev Psych_2017.pdf

OK! Thank you Angry floof. The paper makes a better argument than the horror story I was painting. Their paper lays out the changes in evolutionary, social,and chemical terms with fair rsupport for each aspect. And the paper builds on Tomasello and Vaish's (2013) paper "Origins of HumanCooperation and Morality" https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/S...files/2015/06/annurev-psych-113011-143812.pdf

Abstract: From an evolutionary perspective, morality is a form of cooperation.Cooperation requires individuals either to suppress their own self-interest or to equate it with that of others. We review recent research on the origins of human morality, both phylogenetic (research withapes) and ontogenetic (research with children). For both time frames we propose a two-step sequence: first a second-personal morality in which individuals are sympathetic or fair to particular others, and second an agent-neutral morality in which individuals follow and enforce group-wide social norms. Human morality arose evolutionarily as a set of skills and motives for cooperating with others, and the ontogeny of these skills and motives unfolds in part naturally and in part as a result of sociocultural contexts and interactions

In fact if you look at the paper Ruby Sparks you'll see recognition that your 'both' presumption is fundamental to the overall argument for HSD. In fact the paper recognizes that evolution is not this or that. it clearly illustrates the existence of this and that all the way along. Apes and Canines exhibit both PAN (Chimpanzee competitive/aggressive) and HSD (Human Social Development) characteristics. It's just that the development of serotonin linked behaviors with testosterone linked behaviors can work together due to slight modifications in neural architecture in both dogs and apes.

In fact it is easy to demonstrate both aggressive and cooperative social outcomes are likely in humans and dogs. IOW the paper doesn't suggest the reversal of anything. The paper supports the addition of more social nuance in these mammals social behavior.

In fact I still disagree with the notion that it's one way or the highway as the authors suggest in their final four summary points.

5. The HSD suggests that natural selection for prosociality and against aggression played a large role in human evolution. Over the past 80,000 years, fossil humans show morphological evidence for selection against aggression that coincides with an increase in cultural artifacts in the fossil record.

6. Selection for in-group prosociality drove human self-domestication in the Paleolithic.Changes in oxytocin and eye sclera color provide two possible mechanisms to explain the increases in cooperative communication, increases in in-group cooperation, and intensification of intergroup conflict that evolved as a result of this selection.

7. Evolutionarily labile neurohormones and neuropeptides provide a ready target of selection for prosociality over aggression. However, human tolerance is flexible beyond what can be accounted for by muted subcortical responses alone. Phylogenetic comparisons suggesting a strong link between inhibition and absolute brain size point to the critical role of cortical regions in allowing for human levels of self-control and tolerance.

8. Human self-domestication predicts increased developmental windows for traits relating to increased tolerance and cooperative communication. Early-emerging social cognition,which develops despite secondary altriciality, together with graded synaptic pruning continuing into adulthood, played a central role in the evolution of H. sapiens.

Why I disagree?
5. Yes there moderation of aggression. Aggression wasn't eliminated. It is obvious it still can predominate within small, medium, and large intrasocial behavior.

6. I agree humans are not fighting fish, see 6. However humans still vary according to habitat, skin, water, etc.

7. Things don't change there so attributing this aspect to the fact that they do is just plain wrong. IOW way to large a net for this suite of adaptations. Being flexible isn't being different in nature. it's an adjustment of existing behavioral tools.

8. The evidence they provide supports the struggle goes on to tune intrasocial behavior and to tune intersocial behavior, happily. The paper does not provide evidence that cooperation replaces aggression, it can moderate it.

I have an uneasy feeling that Gould (Wynne-Edwards) rises his head in their arguments without evidence.