I have been following your conversation on individuation, and have something to add.
The Sufi's believe that by the 'end times' eight out of ten people will still be children - failing to mature and develop a sufficient degree of individuation from social forces. They developed these ideas in the context of violent social repression in the middle ages, but born of millenia of middle-east culture including the christian experiences (they believe that JC was one of them trying to get people to wake up and self-actualise).
If the Sufi's are correct and only two out of ten do become self-actualised then what does this tell us about individuation? Is it social factors that inhibit the other eight out of ten? But look at human-scale pre-industrial cultures with flat hierarchies and you still see few becoming self-actualised. Could the social pressure to conform be an innate process that is (as an evolutionary strange-attractor) very difficult if not impossible to break?
Alastair McGowan wrote: > Could the social pressure to conform be an innate process that is (as > an evolutionary strange-attractor) very difficult if not impossible to > break?
I had to look up "strange-attractor." The mathematical concept of an "attractor" might be an apt way of looking at it. This somehow reminded me of a theory I once concocted about conformity, which I haven't thought about for some time. I used to think that conformity was simply an outcome of the constant reinforcement of such, which would be the simplest explanation for it -- but that's because I had a particular ideal -- namely, that everyone was capable of self-actualization. I abandoned that ideal, because I have no evidence for it. My thinking was that conformity becomes automatic because it is so rigorously and constantly enforced by myriad cues on a daily basis, and was simply a product of the instinct of self-preservation. Think back to grade school. It seemed to me that during childhood, conformity was constantly rewarded, and nonconformity constantly punished, by students and teachers alike. Over time, you're just whipped into line by this barrage of rewards and punishments, until it becomes automatic. I suppose that is the simplest explanation, but I don't know anything about other possible explanations.
On Nov 13, 3:44 pm, Bob Thompson <thompbob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> My thinking was that conformity becomes automatic because it
> is so rigorously and constantly enforced by myriad cues on a
> daily basis, and was simply a product of the instinct of self-
> preservation. Think back to grade school. It seemed to me that
> during childhood, conformity was constantly rewarded, and
> nonconformity constantly punished, by students and teachers
> alike. Over time, you're just whipped into line by this barrage of
> rewards and punishments, until it becomes automatic. I suppose
> that is the simplest explanation, but I don't know anything about
> other possible explanations.
I recall someone writing that conformity among the higher
educated is a result of a longer training period.
On a longer timeframe, there's an evolutionary aspect: early
hominids would have lived in small tribes. They didn't have
great reasoning and debating skills so they'd generally do
things en masse or according to ritual, i.e. tried and trusted
routines. Only the leader would develop an individual mindset,
and to challenge him was an onerous undertaking. That's the
environment where the group instincts would have been
ingrained.
> On Nov 13, 3:44 pm, Bob Thompson <thompbob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> My thinking was that conformity becomes automatic because it
>> is so rigorously and constantly enforced by myriad cues on a
>> daily basis, and was simply a product of the instinct of self-
>> preservation. Think back to grade school. It seemed to me that
>> during childhood, conformity was constantly rewarded, and
>> nonconformity constantly punished, by students and teachers
>> alike. Over time, you're just whipped into line by this barrage of
>> rewards and punishments, until it becomes automatic. I suppose
>> that is the simplest explanation, but I don't know anything about
>> other possible explanations.
> I recall someone writing that conformity among the higher
> educated is a result of a longer training period.
> On a longer timeframe, there's an evolutionary aspect: early
> hominids would have lived in small tribes. They didn't have
> great reasoning and debating skills so they'd generally do
> things en masse or according to ritual, i.e. tried and trusted
> routines. Only the leader would develop an individual mindset,
> and to challenge him was an onerous undertaking. That's the
> environment where the group instincts would have been
> ingrained.
Here is some of Freud's input on the matter:
"There is, of course, no place for the beginnings of totemism in
Darwin’s primal horde. All that we find there is a violent and
jealous father who keeps all the females for himself and drives
away his sons as they grow up. This earliest state of society has
never been an object of observation. The most primitive kind of
organization that we actually come across -- and one that is in
force to this day in certain tribes -- consists of bands of males;
these bands are composed of members with equal rights and are
subject to the restrictions of the totemic system, including
inheritance through the mother. Can this form of organization
have developed out of the other one? and if so along what lines?
"If we call the celebration of the totem meal to our help, we shall
be able to find an answer. One day the brothers who had been
driven out came together, killed and devoured their father and so
made an end of the patriarchal horde. United, they had the courage
to do and succeeded in doing what would have been impossible
for them individually."
Has anyone else read the novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, or Derrick Jensen
(deep ecology; anarcho-primitivism) or Jared Diamond on civilisation. They
seem to give a meta-view to the problem noted by Freud.
From the above literature the main premise is that civilisation (Quinn's
'takers') is based fundamentally on violence whereas other forms of society
are not predicated on violence. "It is the unmentionable reality of
civilisation that it depends on fighting." (Lacey and Danziger, 1999).
Given this premise it is easier to see how authority and hierarchy become a
way for the individual to protect himself from the inherent violence of
'civilised' society and from being trampled to the bottom of the pile (I say
'himself' because patriarchy seems to be connected with the problem).
Furthermore, I have developed an idea that external authority (as opposed to
Ken Wilber's concept of inner authority) is closely associated with
something I call cultural post traumatic stress disorder or CPTSD: The more
developed and hence more extended the hierarchy in a society the more
implicitly authority is required to maintain it and - you guessed it - the
more anxiety depression and unhappiness results (see the happy planet
index). In other words civilisation causes the fragmentation of normal
social relationships and drives populations to CPTSD.
It's striking to me how closely post traumatic stress (PTSD) resembles the
'fear' of those who have high authoritarian personality. Perhaps AP is both
a result of civilisation in susceptible ('weak') people and an evolutionary
dynamic for managing the abnormal social relationships that develop within
society?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theauthoritarians@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:theauthoritarians@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: 16 November 2008 16:53
> To: The Authoritarians
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left
> On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, I wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 3:44 pm, Bob Thompson <thompbob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> My thinking was that conformity becomes automatic because it
> >> is so rigorously and constantly enforced by myriad cues on a
> >> daily basis, and was simply a product of the instinct of self-
> >> preservation. Think back to grade school. It seemed to me that
> >> during childhood, conformity was constantly rewarded, and
> >> nonconformity constantly punished, by students and teachers
> >> alike. Over time, you're just whipped into line by this barrage of
> >> rewards and punishments, until it becomes automatic. I suppose
> >> that is the simplest explanation, but I don't know anything about
> >> other possible explanations.
> > I recall someone writing that conformity among the higher
> > educated is a result of a longer training period.
> > On a longer timeframe, there's an evolutionary aspect: early
> > hominids would have lived in small tribes. They didn't have
> > great reasoning and debating skills so they'd generally do
> > things en masse or according to ritual, i.e. tried and trusted
> > routines. Only the leader would develop an individual mindset,
> > and to challenge him was an onerous undertaking. That's the
> > environment where the group instincts would have been
> > ingrained.
> Here is some of Freud's input on the matter:
> "There is, of course, no place for the beginnings of totemism in
> Darwin’s primal horde. All that we find there is a violent and
> jealous father who keeps all the females for himself and drives
> away his sons as they grow up. This earliest state of society has
> never been an object of observation. The most primitive kind of
> organization that we actually come across -- and one that is in
> force to this day in certain tribes -- consists of bands of males;
> these bands are composed of members with equal rights and are
> subject to the restrictions of the totemic system, including
> inheritance through the mother. Can this form of organization
> have developed out of the other one? and if so along what lines?
> "If we call the celebration of the totem meal to our help, we shall
> be able to find an answer. One day the brothers who had been
> driven out came together, killed and devoured their father and so
> made an end of the patriarchal horde. United, they had the courage
> to do and succeeded in doing what would have been impossible
> for them individually."
> It's striking to me how closely post traumatic stress
> (PTSD) resembles the 'fear' of those who have high
> authoritarian personality. Perhaps AP is both a result
> of civilisation in susceptible ('weak') people and an
> evolutionary dynamic for managing the abnormal social
> relationships that develop within society?
C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the
trauma (e.g. inability to talk about things even related
to the experience, avoidance of things and discussions
that trigger flashbacks and reexperiencing symptoms fear
of losing control)
D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (e.g. difficulty
falling or staying asleep, anger and hypervigilance)
Anger at the constant suppression ; avoidance in looking at
the causes for fear of crumbling one's own constructs.
Certainly some parallels.
Crumbled constructs would probably be good -- provided
with the tools to rebuild the self.
Freud is critical of modern civilization but moreso of ancient
ones:
"If civilization imposes such great sacrifices not only
on man's sexuality, but also on his aggressivity, we are
in a better position to understand why it is so hard for
him to feel happy in it. Primitive man was actually better
off, because his drives were not restricted. Yet this was
counterbalanced by the fact that he had little certainty
of enjoying this good fortune for long. Civilized man has
traded in a portion of his chances of happiness for a certain
measure of security. But let us not forget that in the
primeval family only its head could give full rein to his
drives; its other members lived in slavish suppression.
In that primal period of civilization, the contrast between
a minority who enjoyed the advantages of civilization
and a majority who were robbed of those advantages was,
therefore, carried to extremes." (Civilization and Its
Discontents, Ch. 5, 1930)
Psychology in one aspect or another ties these concepts together.
For decades that was my mindset. However:
Altemeyer reoriented my thinking when he was able to condense
the AP into just three, most-basic, traits--Aggression, Submission or hierarchy, and Conventionalism. These traits are expressed consistently
in the findings of Adorno, Milgram, and Zimbardo.
It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits arise naturally
in Darwin's evolution:
Aggressiveness effectively secured resources and mates for
either gender, and survival or their genes was more common than not.
Hierarchical submissives allowed aggressives to direct them
in gaining resources and mates so they too survived. The herding instinct comes to mind here as well. And so does pack hunting which many animals and humans do so well.
Conventionalism amounts to going along with what works for
survival. Sleeping in a cave with a fire at the mouth allowed
the venturesome to survive in otherwise hostile regions.
Copying tool use and weaponry had similar effects, particularly
in prehistory. Doing what one had to do to stay alive, left its
mark in gene survival rates. And here we are today, with genes
ill-suited for civilization. Not entirely, for genes for altruism,
parenting, and herding survived by successfully opposing aggression, and these too led to survival.
The first two traits we share with most of the animal world.
The third may be more uniquely human.
To me the evidence is compelling, but perhaps not to the radical fringes of the APs who are the main problems in today's world.
It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also known
as the narcissistic personality, who is the main danger--to all
of us.
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <tilt...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left
> Sent: 16 Nov '08 20:08
> On Nov 16, 6:13 pm, "Alastair McGowan" wrote:
> > It's striking to me how closely post traumatic stress
> > (PTSD) resembles the 'fear' of those who have high
> > authoritarian personality. Perhaps AP is both a result
> > of civilisation in susceptible ('weak') people and an
> > evolutionary dynamic for managing the abnormal social
> > relationships that develop within society?
> C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the
> trauma (e.g. inability to talk about things even related
> to the experience, avoidance of things and discussions
> that trigger flashbacks and reexperiencing symptoms fear
> of losing control)
> D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (e.g. difficulty
> falling or staying asleep, anger and hypervigilance)
> Anger at the constant suppression ; avoidance in looking at
> the causes for fear of crumbling one's own constructs.
> Certainly some parallels.
> Crumbled constructs would probably be good -- provided
> with the tools to rebuild the self.
> Freud is critical of modern civilization but moreso of ancient
> ones:
> "If civilization imposes such great sacrifices not only
> on man's sexuality, but also on his aggressivity, we are
> in a better position to understand why it is so hard for
> him to feel happy in it. Primitive man was actually better
> off, because his drives were not restricted. Yet this was
> counterbalanced by the fact that he had little certainty
> of enjoying this good fortune for long. Civilized man has
> traded in a portion of his chances of happiness for a certain
> measure of security. But let us not forget that in the
> primeval family only its head could give full rein to his
> drives; its other members lived in slavish suppression.
> In that primal period of civilization, the contrast between
> a minority who enjoyed the advantages of civilization
> and a majority who were robbed of those advantages was,
> therefore, carried to extremes." (Civilization and Its
> Discontents, Ch. 5, 1930)
On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
> Altemeyer reoriented my thinking when he was able to
> condense the AP into just three, most-basic, traits--
> Aggression, Submission or hierarchy, and Conventionalism.
> These traits are expressed consistently in the findings
> of Adorno, Milgram, and Zimbardo.
> It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits
> arise naturally in Darwin's evolution:
> ...
> It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also
> known as the narcissistic personality, who is the main
> danger--to all of us.
The dynamics of Darwinian aggression are covered well by
social dominance theory. Its authors, Sidanius and Pratto,
find distinctions between social dominance orientation (SDO)
and RWA. You can read their finding here:-
I will get to this book soon. I realize the three personalities differ in detail.
But all three involve the kinds of behavior that bedevils the rest of us. It
is these behaviors I am concerned about. Deductive research rarely explains
more than 30% or so of the total variance, and can be as low as 4% and
still be "significant." For this reason it rarely can prove much of anything to the degree needed. It can illustrate what is likely the irrelevant issues. For these statements, I am coming from the statistics employed, the best we have, are simply not definitive enough for real guidance.
My current take is that no matter how one defines these syndromes, together
they account for most of the violence we suffer. We need to study that 1-4%,
depending on who is writing about them, to make effective progress. Even
that won't be easy, statistical precision being what it is. Hare, Frank and Stout
have written about this angle. What they say supports the take I make. For sure
the ending story will not be simple--if we ever get to see it.
What is it in their genomes (nature) and upbringing (nurture) that makes the
"radical APa" behave as they do? Answer this in even an incomplete way analytically, and we can start making progress. At least that is my hope and expectation.
Our prison population of violent offenders could be an excellent, ready-made, cohort in terms of behavior patterns. The basic independent variables of nature and nurture correlated with degrees and types of violence could be a starting
experimental plan. Factor Analysis could provide some guidance, after
a year or two of grouping for the right vocabulary and definitions perhaps.
Thanks again for your effort.. I look forward to filling out my library.
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <tilt...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left
> Sent: 17 Nov '08 21:30
> On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
> > Altemeyer reoriented my thinking when he was able to
> > condense the AP into just three, most-basic, traits--
> > Aggression, Submission or hierarchy, and Conventionalism.
> > These traits are expressed consistently in the findings
> > of Adorno, Milgram, and Zimbardo.
> > It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits
> > arise naturally in Darwin's evolution:
> > ...
> > It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also
> > known as the narcissistic personality, who is the main
> > danger--to all of us.
> The dynamics of Darwinian aggression are covered well by
> social dominance theory. Its authors, Sidanius and Pratto,
> find distinctions between social dominance orientation (SDO)
> and RWA. You can read their finding here:-
> It's a fine point though, e.g. intra-group aggression vs.
> inter-group aggression (SDO).
> I'll get back to you on Hare's definition of psychopathy later.
> I'm dubious about the links to narcissism, but the use of the
> term seems to vary.
You guys know way more about this than I do, so this is interesting for me, and I'm trying to get up to speed a little bit on this area of research. Evolutionary psychology seems a pretty speculative area at this point in time. What I'm wondering is, how could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved, or what their social structure was? There's a huge gap between now and then. Even studying modern primitive tribes wouldn't necessarily tell us how things worked back then. I don't doubt that the instinct of aggression would have played a role in natural selection. But mammals generally don't engage in violence with their own species unless they have a compelling reason, usually competition for turf, mates, whatever. It seems that for most species, aggression usually isn't triggered until it's needed, and avoided whenever possible, because it's risky. Population density in a particular region would be a dominant factor in how much conflict would actually occur, hence how much natural selection would actually result in a trend toward more aggressive specimens. My impression is that population density wasn't that much of a concern for early man, correct me if I'm wrong. Of course the instinct would always be there if needed. But it's a precarious thing to speculate about how these early people in the wild would have organized themselves, and how they behaved; particularly viewed through the lens of the current human experience, in which population density and competition for resources is often a concern; not to mention that modern man seems to invent a lot of reasons for killing each other, not really related to survival at all. I guess I need to see more evidence that primitives 100,000 years or so in the past were so violent, as seems to be presented. Couldn't one just as easily speculate that the advent of civilization resulted in an /increase/ in violent behavior of the species?
Chris wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
>> Altemeyer reoriented my thinking when he was able to
>> condense the AP into just three, most-basic, traits--
>> Aggression, Submission or hierarchy, and Conventionalism.
>> These traits are expressed consistently in the findings
>> of Adorno, Milgram, and Zimbardo.
>> It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits
>> arise naturally in Darwin's evolution:
>> ...
>> It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also
>> known as the narcissistic personality, who is the main
>> danger--to all of us.
> The dynamics of Darwinian aggression are covered well by
> social dominance theory. Its authors, Sidanius and Pratto,
> find distinctions between social dominance orientation (SDO)
> and RWA. You can read their finding here:-
> It's a fine point though, e.g. intra-group aggression vs.
> inter-group aggression (SDO).
> I'll get back to you on Hare's definition of psychopathy later.
> I'm dubious about the links to narcissism, but the use of the
> term seems to vary.
Blue}
Some of this is talked about in the videos at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark -- a rather good conference. One area of research in the brain, both in humans and other species, including areas linked to behaviors and neurochemicals, and some extrapolations done with that information.
>You guys know way more about this than I do, so this is interesting >for me, and I'm trying to get up to speed a little bit on this area >of research. Evolutionary psychology seems a pretty speculative area >at this point in time. What I'm wondering is, how could Freud or >anyone else possibly know how early man behaved, or what their >social structure was? There's a huge gap between now and then. Even >studying modern primitive tribes wouldn't necessarily tell us how >things worked back then. I don't doubt that the instinct of >aggression would have played a role in natural selection. But >mammals generally don't engage in violence with their own species >unless they have a compelling reason, usually competition for turf, >mates, whatever. It seems that for most species, aggression usually >isn't triggered until it's needed, and avoided whenever possible, >because it's risky. Population density in a particular region would >be a dominant factor in how much conflict would actually occur, >hence how much natural selection would actually result in a trend >toward more aggressive specimens. My impression is that population >density wasn't that much of a concern for early man, correct me if >I'm wrong. Of course the instinct would always be there if needed. >But it's a precarious thing to speculate about how these early >people in the wild would have organized themselves, and how they >behaved; particularly viewed through the lens of the current human >experience, in which population density and competition for >resources is often a concern; not to mention that modern man seems >to invent a lot of reasons for killing each other, not really >related to survival at all. I guess I need to see more evidence that >primitives 100,000 years or so in the past were so violent, as seems >to be presented. Couldn't one just as easily speculate that the >advent of civilization resulted in an increase in violent behavior >of the species?
>Chris wrote:
>>On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" >><mailto:rose...@amargosa.net><rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
>>>Altemeyer reoriented my thinking when he was able to
>>>condense the AP into just three, most-basic, traits--
>>>Aggression, Submission or hierarchy, and Conventionalism.
>>>These traits are expressed consistently in the findings
>>>of Adorno, Milgram, and Zimbardo.
>>>It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits
>>>arise naturally in Darwin's evolution:
>>>...
>>>It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also
>>>known as the narcissistic personality, who is the main
>>>danger--to all of us.
>>The dynamics of Darwinian aggression are covered well by
>>social dominance theory. Its authors, Sidanius and Pratto,
>>find distinctions between social dominance orientation (SDO)
>>and RWA. You can read their finding here:-
>>It's a fine point though, e.g. intra-group aggression vs.
>>inter-group aggression (SDO).
>>I'll get back to you on Hare's definition of psychopathy later.
>>I'm dubious about the links to narcissism, but the use of the
>>term seems to vary.
I guess it's gonna take awhile to sort this out. I found one guy who has distilled what I'd rather believe for the most part, if I was still capable of believing what I'd prefer to be the truth, which I'm not:
Since he was so quick to dismiss Pinker's book <http://books.google.com/books?id=7rJ5gI1LbXoC&pg=PP1&dq=Steven+Pinker...>, that might be an excellent starting point for me. I guess what this inquiry boils down to, for my obscure, ineffectual little life, is deciding whether the species is worth attempting to salvage. At this point in time I see no reason for optimism. The main objective of Pinker's book seems to be to destroy three gigantic illusions about human nature that still drive much of man's attempt to grapple with understanding himself: the blank slate, the noble savage, and the ghost in the machine. I'm long past the point of believing any of that crap, but examining the evidence amassed against it might be helpful.
bluepilgrim wrote: > Blue} > Some of this is talked about in the videos at > http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark > -- a rather good conference. One area of research in the brain, both > in humans and other species, including areas linked to behaviors and > neurochemicals, and some extrapolations done with that information.
> At 22:56 11/18/2008, you wrote:
>> You guys know way more about this than I do, so this is interesting >> for me, and I'm trying to get up to speed a little bit on this area >> of research. Evolutionary psychology seems a pretty speculative area >> at this point in time. What I'm wondering is, how could Freud or >> anyone else possibly know how early man behaved, or what their social >> structure was? There's a huge gap between now and then. Even studying >> modern primitive tribes wouldn't necessarily tell us how things >> worked back then. I don't doubt that the instinct of aggression would >> have played a role in natural selection. But mammals generally don't >> engage in violence with their own species unless they have a >> compelling reason, usually competition for turf, mates, whatever. It >> seems that for most species, aggression usually isn't triggered until >> it's needed, and avoided whenever possible, because it's risky. >> Population density in a particular region would be a dominant factor >> in how much conflict would actually occur, hence how much natural >> selection would actually result in a trend toward more aggressive >> specimens. My impression is that population density wasn't that much >> of a concern for early man, correct me if I'm wrong. Of course the >> instinct would always be there if needed. But it's a precarious thing >> to speculate about how these early people in the wild would have >> organized themselves, and how they behaved; particularly viewed >> through the lens of the current human experience, in which population >> density and competition for resources is often a concern; not to >> mention that modern man seems to invent a lot of reasons for killing >> each other, not really related to survival at all. I guess I need to >> see more evidence that primitives 100,000 years or so in the past >> were so violent, as seems to be presented. Couldn't one just as >> easily speculate that the advent of civilization resulted in an >> /increase/ in violent behavior of the species?
I avoid 'believing' anything (it only makes me more prone to error), but I do have some opinions. One is that much of violence is the result of self-fulfilling prophesy. In fact, so is much of many things. Peace and violence may well be largely bistable, each bringing on more of the same, especially taking child rearing practices based on parents' world views into account. I respect Pinker for his intellect and work, but I never did take him as being a great source of truth as regards his conclusions, biases, and context. I wonder about J.R.R. Tolkien's world, with men orcs and elves, (guess who the authoritarians are) and wonder if half the humans have now been largely mixed so they are half-orcs and the others half elves -- seems as good an explanation for many things as long as we are doomed to invent abstract explanations (especially concerning "human nature"). I think I have met people who are more orc than human -- many of them politicians. (But even the 'good guys' in Tolkien are rather authoritarian and warlike -- probably the Manachean Christian influence.) Maybe we are nearing the end of the Third Age (the age of men)? This is an advantage of not believing things -- all sorts of metaphors and narratives become available.
One of the videos in that same Candles in the Dark conference (this is your brain on money sessions) is of Zimbardo talking about his new book on time frames, which also seems like a useful narrative (things like delayed gratification and thinking ahead). Maybe this, and authoritarianism, has a large genetic predispositional component. A thing to keep in mind, however, is that, apparently, we evolved to eat, reproduce, and not step into holes in the ground or bump into trees, not to manage large cooperative societies or understand the universe -- our biology works against that and we have to find ways to compensate for it, and include those into our cultures.
>I guess it's gonna take awhile to sort this out. I found one guy who >has distilled what I'd rather believe for the most part, if I was >still capable of believing what I'd prefer to be the truth, which I'm not:
>Since he was so quick to dismiss ><http://books.google.com/books?id=7rJ5gI1LbXoC&pg=PP1&dq=Steven+Pinker...>Pinker's >book, that might be an excellent starting point for me. I guess what >this inquiry boils down to, for my obscure, ineffectual little life, >is deciding whether the species is worth attempting to salvage. At >this point in time I see no reason for optimism. The main objective >of Pinker's book seems to be to destroy three gigantic illusions >about human nature that still drive much of man's attempt to grapple >with understanding himself: the blank slate, the noble savage, and >the ghost in the machine. I'm long past the point of believing any >of that crap, but examining the evidence amassed against it might be helpful.
>bluepilgrim wrote:
>>Blue}
>>Some of this is talked about in the videos at >>http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark >>-- a rather good conference. One area of research in the brain, >>both in humans and other species, including areas linked to >>behaviors and neurochemicals, and some extrapolations done with >>that information.
>>At 22:56 11/18/2008, you wrote:
>>>You guys know way more about this than I do, so this is >>>interesting for me, and I'm trying to get up to speed a little bit >>>on this area of research. Evolutionary psychology seems a pretty >>>speculative area at this point in time. What I'm wondering is, how >>>could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved, or >>>what their social structure was? There's a huge gap between now >>>and then. Even studying modern primitive tribes wouldn't >>>necessarily tell us how things worked back then. I don't doubt >>>that the instinct of aggression would have played a role in >>>natural selection. But mammals generally don't engage in violence >>>with their own species unless they have a compelling reason, >>>usually competition for turf, mates, whatever. It seems that for >>>most species, aggression usually isn't triggered until it's >>>needed, and avoided whenever possible, because it's risky. >>>Population density in a particular region would be a dominant >>>factor in how much conflict would actually occur, hence how much >>>natural selection would actually result in a trend toward more >>>aggressive specimens. My impression is that population density >>>wasn't that much of a concern for early man, correct me if I'm >>>wrong. Of course the instinct would always be there if needed. But >>>it's a precarious thing to speculate about how these early people >>>in the wild would have organized themselves, and how they behaved; >>>particularly viewed through the lens of the current human >>>experience, in which population density and competition for >>>resources is often a concern; not to mention that modern man seems >>>to invent a lot of reasons for killing each other, not really >>>related to survival at all. I guess I need to see more evidence >>>that primitives 100,000 years or so in the past were so violent, >>>as seems to be presented. Couldn't one just as easily speculate >>>that the advent of civilization resulted in an increase in violent >>>behavior of the species?
Yeah, Zimbardo's discovery does seem pretty darn significant, since the results of the experiment turned out to be such an accurate predictor of adult behavior. I saw his book on that in the psychology section of the bookstore the other day, but it didn't occur to me to buy it. The video was kind of a frustrating source for the information, since he was obviously flustered at having someone nagging him about going over his time limit, and started skipping stuff in the presentation... there's that "time" thing again.
bluepilgrim wrote:
> I avoid 'believing' anything (it only makes me more prone to error), > but I do have some opinions. One is that much of violence is the > result of self-fulfilling prophesy. In fact, so is much of many > things. Peace and violence may well be largely bistable, each bringing > on more of the same, especially taking child rearing practices based > on parents' world views into account. I respect Pinker for his > intellect and work, but I never did take him as being a great source > of truth as regards his conclusions, biases, and context. I wonder > about J.R.R. Tolkien's world, with men orcs and elves, (guess who the > authoritarians are) and wonder if half the humans have now been > largely mixed so they are half-orcs and the others half elves -- seems > as good an explanation for many things as long as we are doomed to > invent abstract explanations (especially concerning "human nature").
> I think I have met people who are more orc than human -- many of them > politicians. (But even the 'good guys' in Tolkien are rather > authoritarian and warlike -- probably the Manachean Christian > influence.) Maybe we are nearing the end of the Third Age (the age of > men)? This is an advantage of not believing things -- all sorts of > metaphors and narratives become available.
> One of the videos in that same Candles in the Dark conference (this is > your brain on money sessions) is of Zimbardo talking about his new > book on time frames, which also seems like a useful narrative (things > like delayed gratification and thinking ahead). Maybe this, and > authoritarianism, has a large genetic predispositional component. A > thing to keep in mind, however, is that, apparently, we evolved to > eat, reproduce, and not step into holes in the ground or bump into > trees, not to manage large cooperative societies or understand the > universe -- our biology works against that and we have to find ways to > compensate for it, and include those into our cultures.
> At 16:10 11/20/2008, you wrote:
> Bob Thompson}
>> I guess it's gonna take awhile to sort this out. I found one guy who >> has distilled what I'd rather believe for the most part, if I was >> still capable of believing what I'd prefer to be the truth, which I'm >> not:
>> Since he was so quick to dismiss Pinker's book >> <http://books.google.com/books?id=7rJ5gI1LbXoC&pg=PP1&dq=Steven+Pinker...>, >> that might be an excellent starting point for me. I guess what this >> inquiry boils down to, for my obscure, ineffectual little life, is >> deciding whether the species is worth attempting to salvage. At this >> point in time I see no reason for optimism. The main objective of >> Pinker's book seems to be to destroy three gigantic illusions about >> human nature that still drive much of man's attempt to grapple with >> understanding himself: the blank slate, the noble savage, and the >> ghost in the machine. I'm long past the point of believing any of >> that crap, but examining the evidence amassed against it might be >> helpful.
>> bluepilgrim wrote:
>>> Blue}
>>> Some of this is talked about in the videos at >>> http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark >>> -- a rather good conference. One area of research in the brain, >>> both in humans and other species, including areas linked to >>> behaviors and neurochemicals, and some extrapolations done with that >>> information.
>>> At 22:56 11/18/2008, you wrote:
>>>> You guys know way more about this than I do, so this is interesting >>>> for me, and I'm trying to get up to speed a little bit on this area >>>> of research. Evolutionary psychology seems a pretty speculative >>>> area at this point in time. What I'm wondering is, how could Freud >>>> or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved, or what their >>>> social structure was? There's a huge gap between now and then. Even >>>> studying modern primitive tribes wouldn't necessarily tell us how >>>> things worked back then. I don't doubt that the instinct of >>>> aggression would have played a role in natural selection. But >>>> mammals generally don't engage in violence with their own species >>>> unless they have a compelling reason, usually competition for turf, >>>> mates, whatever. It seems that for most species, aggression usually >>>> isn't triggered until it's needed, and avoided whenever possible, >>>> because it's risky. Population density in a particular region would >>>> be a dominant factor in how much conflict would actually occur, >>>> hence how much natural selection would actually result in a trend >>>> toward more aggressive specimens. My impression is that population >>>> density wasn't that much of a concern for early man, correct me if >>>> I'm wrong. Of course the instinct would always be there if needed. >>>> But it's a precarious thing to speculate about how these early >>>> people in the wild would have organized themselves, and how they >>>> behaved; particularly viewed through the lens of the current human >>>> experience, in which population density and competition for >>>> resources is often a concern; not to mention that modern man seems >>>> to invent a lot of reasons for killing each other, not really >>>> related to survival at all. I guess I need to see more evidence >>>> that primitives 100,000 years or so in the past were so violent, as >>>> seems to be presented. Couldn't one just as easily speculate that >>>> the advent of civilization resulted in an /increase/ in violent >>>> behavior of the species?
>Yeah, Zimbardo's discovery does seem pretty darn significant, since >the results of the experiment turned out to be such an accurate >predictor of adult behavior. I saw his book on that in the >psychology section of the bookstore the other day, but it didn't >occur to me to buy it. The video was kind of a frustrating source >for the information, since he was obviously flustered at having >someone nagging him about going over his time limit, and started >skipping stuff in the presentation... there's that "time" thing again.
On Nov 17, 9:30 pm, Chris <tilt...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
> > It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits
> > arise naturally in Darwin's evolution:
> The dynamics of Darwinian aggression are covered well by
> social dominance theory. Its authors, Sidanius and Pratto,
> find distinctions between social dominance orientation (SDO)
> and RWA. You can read their finding here:-
> It's a fine point though, e.g. intra-group aggression vs.
> inter-group aggression (SDO).
Actually, what they wrote was somewhat different:
"Conceptually, authoritarianism concerns submission to the
authority of the ingroup, whereas social dominance orientation
(SDO) concerns attitudes towards hierarchical relationships
between groups."
So the dynamics of aggression may be common to both theories,
although I recall a pertinent comment posted to this group by
Donald Stahl back on June 10th:
'... aggression within a tribe or pack promotes production
of healthy specimens more likely to survive to reproduce.
Aggression between tribes promotes dispersal of the species
over the globe.'
(At which point he recommends Lorenz' Foundations of Ethology.
This may be of interest to Bob in answering his question: "how
could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved,
or what their social structure was?" I haven't read it myself.)
> -------Original Message------- > From: Chris <tilt...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk> > Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left > Sent: 23 Nov '08 19:14
SNIP
> (At which point he recommends Lorenz' Foundations of Ethology. > This may be of interest to Bob in answering his question: "how > could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved, > or what their social structure was?" I haven't read it myself.)
Of course there can be no way to know how early man behaved. But the aggression / submission paring is observed in species with which we have concestors. Whether inherited or a later re-evolution, it makes no difference to the fact that most of humanity is AP. Our problems come not so much from the APs as from the extremes APs who gain inordinate power and are without empathy or conscience if Martha Stout is to be believed. The AP is not democratic by nature, and this compounds our problems.
But the APs are mostly good people, accountants, doctors, airline pilots are prime examples. Never mind that they can make life miserable for others. Never mind that they often act like sheep in the voting booth.
> > (At which point he recommends Lorenz' Foundations of Ethology.> > This may be of interest to Bob in answering his question: "how> > could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved,> > or what their social structure was?" I haven't read it myself.)> > Of course there can be no way to know how early man behaved.> But the aggression / submission paring is observed in species with > which we have concestors. Whether inherited or a later re-evolution,> it makes no difference to the fact that most of humanity is AP.
This is an assertion which certainly gives pause. May I ask what its basis is? Certainly nothing in Altemeyer suggests this.
> Our problems come not so much from the APs as from the extremes> APs who gain inordinate power and are without empathy or> conscience if Martha Stout is to be believed.
May I also ask where Martha Stout makes this assertion, and what the grounds are for it? Authoritarian personality is a trait, not a diagnosis of sociopathy.
>The AP> is not democratic by nature, and this compounds our problems.> > But the APs are mostly good people, accountants, doctors, airline> pilots are prime examples. Never mind that they can make life> miserable for others. Never mind that they often act like sheep in > the voting booth.Donald E. Stahl 12079 Pattern Dr. St. Louis, MO 63138-1938 USA tel: 314-567-8845 http://9-11.meetup.com/4/ "And people don't care. They look out the window, they see the sun shining, they. . . "it's not affecting my life." And they just press on. They just go on, aloof, like they don't, you know, that's all they care about is what's going on in their immediate, in their immediate world. They're not conscious of what's really going on, their neighbors, their, their, the world, for that matter. I just hope there's hope for mankind. I hope there's a disease." ----First Responder Kevin McPadden, in the video The Elephant in the Room ""I believe, in short, in the ultimate victory of truth. I knowthat this sounds rather pompous, but I honestly do think itis the most likely thing to happen." ---Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, pp. 287f.Magna est veritas, et praevalebit.> From: rose...@amargosa.net> To: theauthoritarians@googlegroups.com> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:47:49 +0000> > > > -------Original Message-------> > From: Chris <tilt...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>> > Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left> > Sent: 23 Nov '08 19:14> > > SNIP> > >
On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
> It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also known as
> the narcissistic personality, who is the main danger--to all of us.
I've just been checking Adorno's thoughts on this. He made some
distinctions between the orthodox authoritarian type and the 'tough
guy'/psychopath, although both are high scorers. Both APs?
"A rough characterization of the several types [of syndromes found
among high scorers on the F-Scale] ... The Authoritarian type is
governed by the superego and has continuously to contend with
strong and highly ambivalent id tendencies. He is driven by the fear
of being weak. In the Tough Guy the repressed id tendencies gain
the upper hand, but in a stunted and destructive form."
And on page 10, regarding the psychopath:
"'This type has arisen with the increased insecurity of post-war
existence. He is convinced that what matters is not life but chance.
He is nihilistic, not out of a "drive for destruction" but because he
is indifferent to individual existence. ...'
"... Subjects of this type do not have as much rigidity as do those
who exhibit the orthodox "Authoritarian" syndrome.
"The extreme representative of this syndrome is the "Tough Guy,"
in psychiatric terminology the "Psychopath.""
Yes, there are fine distinctions. What I am looking for here are the types sharing aggression, hierarchy, and conventionalism. These traits are sufficient to explain our violent sides as arising from our endowed instincts, or genetics. The "SPN" types seem to be primary instigators of large-scale violence. And they can be known by their early-life behavior. Instead of channeling them in safe directions after recognition, we hide from their signals to our later regret. "W" is just the most recent example; the costs he incurred are too huge to ignore. At least so it seems to me.
> -------Original Message------- > From: Chris <tilt...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk> > Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left > Sent: 29 Nov '08 17:56
> On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
> > It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also known as > > the narcissistic personality, who is the main danger--to all of us.
> I've just been checking Adorno's thoughts on this. He made some > distinctions between the orthodox authoritarian type and the 'tough > guy'/psychopath, although both are high scorers. Both APs?
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder
defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as "a
pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of
empathy."
DSM-IV divides personality disorders into three clusters based on
symptom similarities. This clustering categorizes the Narcissistic
personality disorder as a cluster B personality disorder, those
personality disorders having in common an excessive sense of self
importance. Also in that cluster are the Borderline personality
disorder, the Histrionic personality disorder and the Antisocial
personality disorder.
Hare's Psychopathy Checklist (1991) found the following:
> Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder
> defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
> the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as "a
> pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of
> empathy."
> DSM-IV divides personality disorders into three clusters based on
> symptom similarities. This clustering categorizes the Narcissistic
> personality disorder as a cluster B personality disorder, those
> personality disorders having in common an excessive sense of self
> importance. Also in that cluster are the Borderline personality
> disorder, the Histrionic personality disorder and the Antisocial
> personality disorder.
> Hare's Psychopathy Checklist (1991) found the following:
In further consideration of "the types sharing aggression, hierarchy,
and conventionalism", the resort to aggression can be explained by
a lack of integration and superficiality of civilized behaviours,
which simultaneously explain rigidity and conventionalism.
The basic mode of human aggression - which may be contrasted with
more deliberative, instrumental aggression - is normally held in check
by the inhibitory social instincts, reinforced by civilized culture.
Among humans, the inhibitory social instincts are not as strong as
amongst the naturally more formidably equipped creatures such as
tigers, who need strong instincts to prevent them killing their fellow
tigers. Human fists are not as deadly as claws and sharp teeth.
"No selection pressure arose in the prehistory of mankind to breed
[such] inhibitory mechanisms..." Lorenz - http://tinyurl.com/8sob2n
So humans rely on civilized culture to instill social behaviour. Like
language this is cultural, not instinctive, and just as poor language
impairs comprehension so too can poorly taught civilized values fail
to curb wild aggression.
If civilized values are not understood and integrated by the learning
individual, they are held in a fragmented and superficial manner,
which can easily fail. Even while it stands it impairs quality of
life by obstructing self-understanding and causing rigidity.
Such rigidity can be understood in accordance with the basic
authoritarian model, or via Alford's sophisticated view on narcissism
in which the fragmented psyche perceives its narcissistic wound (by
self-comparison against others more able or wholesome), and shores
up its self-image by identification with a power base.
On Nov 29, 9:18 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
> [...] What I am looking for here are the types sharing aggression,
> hierarchy, and conventionalism. These traits are sufficient to
> explain our violent sides as arising from our endowed instincts,
> or genetics. ...
|
