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

[Worldtraveller]

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.

Hate to break it to ya, but it isn't Jokodo who's misunderstanding. If that's not what you intend, you should think about re-writing it instead of complaining, because that's how I read it as well. Your continued defense without attempting to actually clarify isn't helping, despite your protests.

So if you didn't intend to write that nature has intent, then go back and see if you can reword your post about that and your assertions about 'our true nature'.

 

[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.

Hate to break it to ya, but it isn't Jokodo who's misunderstanding. If that's not what you intend, you should think about re-writing it instead of complaining, because that's how I read it as well. Your continued defense without attempting to actually clarify isn't helping, despite your protests.

So if you didn't intend to write that nature has intent, then go back and see if you can reword your post about that and your assertions about 'our true nature'.

Its an idiom. Which I think is clear. I like it when others make an effort not to write boringly. I try to do the same.

People aren't stupid. They understand a lot. So I think it's cool not to have to explain the basics every time. Jokodo thought I was an idiot. He didn't give me the benefit of the doubt, but jumped straight to interpreting the idiom literally, and then refused to accept that I understand ToE just fine. At any point he could have said, "thanks for clarifying" and moved on.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Its an idiom. Which I think is clear.

Clearly, you are wrong

Jokodo thought I was an idiot.

You keep trying to prove them correct.

 

[Swammerdami]

Chinese people sometimes seem to have values that are more altruistic than those of Westerners. I vaguely recall reading decades ago about a possible "altruism mutation" in East Asia? Does anyone recall that?

Ants and bees are "programmed" for cooperation due to their mode of reproduction. Scientists poured cement into a colony of ants — whose total brain mass was roughly comparable to that of a single human. It's impressive what they uncovered after weeks of dirt removal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Its an idiom. Which I think is clear.

Clearly, you are wrong

Perhaps. But I still think he understood it was but was just trolling. That was my impression based on his confrontational and insulting style of expression. If the goal is to have an honest discussion and try to learn things from eachother, test ideas, they don't write like that.

 

[Jokodo]

Its an idiom. Which I think is clear.

Clearly, you are wrong

Perhaps. But I still think he understood it was but was just trolling. That was my impression based on his confrontational and insulting style of expression.

My confrontational and insulting style of expression? You clearly started out the confrontation - you accused me of engaging in a fallacy here and called me a "deluded religious nutjob" here, both based on your misrepresentation of what I was actually saying, both before I ever questioned your understanding of evolution explicitly.

If the goal is to have an honest discussion and try to learn things from eachother, test ideas, they don't write like that.

Indeed, which is part of why I find it increasingly hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you what to have an honest discussion and learn things.

Are you posting drunk? I'm asking because you seem to have no recollection of your own posts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Perhaps. But I still think he understood it was but was just trolling. That was my impression based on his confrontational and insulting style of expression. If the goal is to have an honest discussion and try to learn things from eachother, test ideas, they don't write like that.

My confrontational and insulting style of expression? You clearly started out the confrontation - you accused me of engaging in a fallacy here and called me a "deluded religious nutjob" here, both based on your misrepresentation of what I was actually saying, both before I ever questioned your understanding of evolution explicitly.

Are you posting drunk? I'm asking because you seem to have no recollection of your own posts.

I didn't call you a religious nutjob. Religious nutjobs often claim that humans are separate from the (other) animals. That things that apply to them don't apply to us. The idea of human specialness.

Since we had already established that you thought humans were part of the animal kingdom I didn't call you a religious nutjob.

 

[ruby sparks]

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



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.

Yes, I read through it last night (a bit too quickly, short of time) and I agree it's an interesting paper.

I think in the end, the authors do try to claim an especially important role for cooperation (I'm sure the phrase 'cooperation and not aggression' is in there at least once) but they make quite a plausible case for it being the special (to our species) reason that our species has been so successful (in terms of becoming by far the dominant species on the planet at least) somewhat like a 'unique selling point'. I'm not sure I'd go along with it fully, and I suspect a similarly plausible case could be made for competition (I suspect both are situational) but I wouldn't dismiss it either. Our ability to (a) suppress short term self-interest (partly because of being able to literally think ahead) and (b) communicate with others in complex ways in order to cooperate, may indeed have been key factors, for us. And one may have fuelled the other in an interactive, mutually-reinforcing fashion (cooperation may have promoted increased communication and vice versa).

Note that near the start, if I recall correctly, the cooperation is not assumed to be altruistic, but strategic (I don't necessarily mean consciously or deliberately so). As such, and if self-interest is, ultimately, present in both cooperation and competition, it is surely a good candidate for being closer to our true nature than anything else. If we both needs the bananas, I will help you climb the tree, so that I (or my kin) can get some bananas. Which in that situation is better than fighting you over who gets up the tree.

However, if there's three of 'us' and only one of 'you'......

And as Gore Vidal said, if there's only enough for one, who gets it, me or you?

 

[Jokodo]

Perhaps. But I still think he understood it was but was just trolling. That was my impression based on his confrontational and insulting style of expression. If the goal is to have an honest discussion and try to learn things from eachother, test ideas, they don't write like that.

My confrontational and insulting style of expression? You clearly started out the confrontation - you accused me of engaging in a fallacy here and called me a "deluded religious nutjob" here, both based on your misrepresentation of what I was actually saying, both before I ever questioned your understanding of evolution explicitly.

Are you posting drunk? I'm asking because you seem to have no recollection of your own posts.

I didn't call you a religious nutjob. Religious nutjobs often claim that humans are separate from the (other) animals. That things that apply to them don't apply to us. The idea of human specialness.

Since we had already established that you thought humans were part of the animal kingdom I didn't call you a religious nutjob.

Maybe you need to read your own posts again, preferably when sober.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I didn't call you a religious nutjob. Religious nutjobs often claim that humans are separate from the (other) animals. That things that apply to them don't apply to us. The idea of human specialness.

Since we had already established that you thought humans were part of the animal kingdom I didn't call you a religious nutjob.

Maybe you need to read your own posts again, preferably when sober.

This is the style of communication I'm talking about. You're free to do it, but you will be treated as a troll if you do. I don't actually mind it. It can be entertaining. But I'm not going to treat it as a serious conversation.

 

[Jokodo]

I didn't call you a religious nutjob. Religious nutjobs often claim that humans are separate from the (other) animals. That things that apply to them don't apply to us. The idea of human specialness.

Since we had already established that you thought humans were part of the animal kingdom I didn't call you a religious nutjob.

Maybe you need to read your own posts again, preferably when sober.

This is the style of communication I'm talking about. You're free to do it, but you will be treated as a troll if you do. I don't actually mind it. It can be entertaining. But I'm not going to treat it as a serious conversation.

It's astonishing how little idea you have about how aggressive and putting words in people's mouth you yourself come across.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is the style of communication I'm talking about. You're free to do it, but you will be treated as a troll if you do. I don't actually mind it. It can be entertaining. But I'm not going to treat it as a serious conversation.

It's astonishing how little idea you have about how aggressive and putting words in people's mouth you yourself come across.

Point taken. Mostly I'm aiming to punch a text up with humour and emphasis for effect. Which may or may not succeed. I can be a bit prickly. At least I'm not trying to insult people. I'm working on it

 

[fromderinside]

Note that near the start, if I recall correctly, the cooperation is not assumed to be altruistic, but strategic (I don't necessarily mean consciously or deliberately so). As such, and if self-interest is, ultimately, present in both cooperation and competition, it is surely a good candidate for being closer to our true nature than anything else. If we both needs the bananas, I will help you climb the tree, so that I (or my kin) can get some bananas. Which in that situation is better than fighting you over who gets up the tree.

However, if there's three of 'us' and only one of 'you'......

And as Gore Vidal said, if there's only enough for one, who gets it, me or you?

Uh, yeah and when the subject of the waggle dance didn't respond the male performing it charged right at it.

End of this story is that when male got close enough target opened mouth let male swim in then bit down leaving the male tail to drop to the bottom of the tank

Oh yeah. The target was a phyrnna.

See how much better an operational statement is than 'The Donald' citing a Gore Vidal sed statement.

 

[fromderinside]

This is the style of communication I'm talking about. You're free to do it, but you will be treated as a troll if you do. I don't actually mind it. It can be entertaining. But I'm not going to treat it as a serious conversation.

It's astonishing how little idea you have about how aggressive and putting words in people's mouth you yourself come across.

Point taken. Mostly I'm aiming to punch a text up with humour and emphasis for effect. Which may or may not succeed. I can be a bit prickly. At least I'm not trying to insult people. I'm working on it

Let's go celebrate. I'll spring for the New Belgium Flat Tires.

 

[fromderinside]

Hey, Just demonstrating one can be aggressive when is dealing out cooperative statements.