|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: DieCommie]
#22490059 - 11/07/15 10:27 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Those are reasonable points, and I sympathize with your position.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
"Permanent debt slaves"
Sound familiar?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
I guess in my take the phenomenon of dialogue, or voices being heard, is mainly something which occurs in the chambers of liberal institutions we have established within means and obvious usefulness, over aa significant matter of time. I think it is not any matter of this being true, but maybe an essential perspective politics may not be so much about the left and right, but the presence and absence of voice, in this chamber's dimensions.
I can't shoot for a political opinion though, unless it is possible for politics to debate the real issues, like say, today, how both parties adhere to the technocrats one way or another? Or is it possible, in this intellectual format to talk about fundamental questions that inform our principles, like of human nature (whether or if it exists)?
Maybe that is the thing. Can we hear a debate like that - both whether or if a principle basis exists. Some people cannot imagine such a possibility. A discussion of human and nature (whether and if it exists in openness) is of course impossible, with the conservative right, but that is not to say anything about the left. The virtual lockouts for intellectuals between humanities and the sciences, in universities is not exactly better.
But then, these guys manage something like a meeting of ideas, for instance:
Foucault was a giant because he was not just any "post modernist", but philosophically traditional (for instance pretty influenced by Nietzsche, who was conservative and yet radical) who really understood the history and epistemelogical background of science, and was a force to be reckoned with, for questions and questioning of liberal enlightenment values. Chomsky was of all advocates of scientific naturalism, still able to meet many of Foucault's sometimes philosophical terms, as a linguist.
Is this thread any reference to Plato's "philosopher king" by the way? Or who are we looking for the gaurdians, anyway? Maybe it's not so much that we need a king, but at least genuine intellectual debate on our basic ideals. The possibility to have that discussion at least as something near, if not part of political discussion, could seem important.
We need more voices like Foucault. I'd put Nietzsche's more incidental question: who is talking like this today; who are "philosophers of the future"?
Edited by Kurt (11/07/15 09:42 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: Kurt]
#22493045 - 11/07/15 09:08 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Very interesting points. Yes, it was perhaps a nod to the philosopher king -- an impracticable ideal, but my mention of it is really just a cry for help. 
The discussion is impossible, probably because most people would be too stupid to understand it, which is threatening to them. No politician wants that, for the same reason they don't want to discuss the coming economic revolution in which machine intelligence takes over the workforce. The lockouts are pathetic, but natural, really.
You make an interesting point when you say that, though Foucault and Chomsky would be labeled leftist, it was impossible to determine that based upon their dialogue. Which gets back to the lack of practicability of the philosopher king, but the adequate substitute we might have for it if only there were honest, free and deep dialogues taking place, at least in a more visible way than at present.
I'd say we could use more of Nietzsche's philosophers of the future as a substitute, but Lord, are they a rare breed.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
How does anyone identify as a republican or a democrat? You have to be an idiot to agree with all of each parties policies. I wish there was a party called "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" because those are generally the political values I hold. Unfortunately with the 2 party con game my political values are diametrically opposed and I don't have a chance to swing the bat in this ball game.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: I wish there was a party called "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" because those are generally the political values I hold.
That is a libertarian. They come in many flavors, as all alternative parties do.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: DieCommie]
#22493127 - 11/07/15 09:28 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I don't identify as libertarian. Libertarian economic views aren't in touch with reality. I'm not that conservative. On a spectrum of 1-10 i'm about a 7 on the fiscally conservative scale and a 7 on the socially liberal scale (where 1 is the opposite and 10 is extreme)
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
I don't know what that scale represents... But not all libertarians want to abolish taxes and safety nets just as not all socialists want to abolish private property and profit. By being non-mainstream parties they naturally pick up a share of loud mouthed cuckoos.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Anyone with anything to say is going to say it in a liberal forum. The left gets both the sciences and humanities. The larger playing field, and the right, is dotted with enough Christian evangelicals (at least in america) to really discredit and make impossible any kind of coherence.
For the right, there are some clear enough value associations between Christian moral standards and unhindered free market. Whether this is ironic, hypocritical, or plain banality, it seems to be the common denomination, that to me is hard to sympathize with at all. I would love someone to convince me that this is not the republican as a party, or "on the issues" in America.
So yeah I see the problem is difficult to reconcile as well. Chomsky suggested that the whole political spectrum has slid to the right today. It makes sense that if this one party is going to stand this way at face value, it is going to in some sense weigh everything down to its side, even if it is completely ridiculous. What is interesting (if practically futile) is how this reflects the left in other words.
Just because the right is completely irresponsible, doesn't mean our modern liberal institutions can't be criticized, and reformed. That is what I think needs to be seen. That's all that's there, and it happens in time, but then every four years someone's got to win the popular vote, so here come the talking points.
Anyway I don't think I gave a concise and general response yet so what I'd say is that two party politics may be totally screwed up in America and probably the majority of places, it dialogue is not unnatural that talk is engaged in two parts naturally, in speaking and being heard, of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. So if the parallel to philosophical dialectic is sought, there has got to be something to it. Just wait till the next synthesis.
Maybe it will always be voting for the lesser evil, while trying to assure a more significant dialogue. I guess that academic or intellectual discussions will be more or less isolated though too.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: Kurt]
#22498202 - 11/08/15 09:49 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If christianity and the right weren't married then I would probably identify myself as right leaning moderate or conservative. The only kind of christian I could vote for are the ones that go to church on easter and xmas as more of a social tradition more so then a religious one or don't go to church at all. The type of christian who identifies for social reasons. However when Carson believes that pyramids were built by biblical joseph to store grain. I mean if you believe that I have to stop right there and just assume that anything else they say is possibly tainted by that delusional ideology.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
why all governments don't work well and depend on police, taxes, soldiers, lawyers, prisons etc end up with have and have nots
has to do with our biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
you have to paste this link-it won't format correctly
it should go to this page, where there are more details
Dunbar's number From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.[1][2][3][4][5][6] This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size.[7]
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: laughingdog]
#22500061 - 11/09/15 11:44 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
That's very interesting, laughingdog. A fundamental, quantitative limitation in social dynamics which gives rise to artificial social contracts, which are flawed due to the fact that they are not genuine, which leads to dysfunction. I think you may have something there.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: laughingdog]
#22501012 - 11/09/15 03:59 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
L-dog, you could say the force of gravitation pulls things together, or that people will without logical reason tend to coagulate in groups, merely by following what seems like basic motor skills. You could talk about the cognitive limits of memory in practical relation to a human life world, or how a spatial or temporal concept is always conceived as finite and contained in an abstraction of spatiotemporal dimensions, and this could all seem to be more or less formally confirming that humans are warm blooded animals that gather in packs. But these formal observations seem to have little if anything to do with what is really expressed by human beings.
If you are perhaps really looking for something which confirms a tenant of behaviorism for its own sake (that external environment imposes causes on biological organism), or as you say "something to do with biology" by formal breakdown, an empirical argument would seem have some burden in being made according to the particular subject spoken to.
I would say you would need to find a study that tests a hypothesis that the finite number of aquaintences which are possible for a human to hold in memory actually has something to do with these social packs in their actual dynamics, that are being referred to.
Can you ground this? Otherwise, I think what we would be talking about here, would just be an empiricist's dogma. Personally, I definitely think humans are inclined to "pack" mentalities, but I wonder if you are suggesting either any correct basis, or insight into this, with your general study.
Edited by Kurt (11/09/15 04:58 PM)
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: Kurt]
#22501449 - 11/09/15 05:10 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
well you certainly have an impressive vocabulary, Kurt ! So much so it is a little hard to follow. I guess you are questioning the relevance of Dunbar's number. It is explained in his 'grooming & gossip' book and probably in online articles. In a nutshell we haven't changed much biologically from our hunter gatherer days. When humans are in small groups where everyone knows each other social pressure keeps folks in line and all the nasty institutions aren't necessary. I do the idea injustice condensing it so. It is a good book. As to verification, I found it in the works of two scientists : Marvin Harris an anthropologist and Jarred Diamond. Their paper backs can be found used on Amazon, and Jarred has lectures on youtube as well. What the research of human history and culture show is a pattern that repeats over and over, when ever or as the hunter gatherer stage is left.
(Disclaimer:I have read five books on this, so please don't take my few sentences of summary to be a valid basis on which to judge it's validity. They are all very readable.)
Anyway once the hunter gather stage is left a few things happen. Agriculture increases food supply. Therefore birth rate increases, so more pressure is put on the food supply & agriculture is expanded. This along with increased hunting reduces available game, and protein content of nutrition goes down. Also increased agriculture degrades the nutrient content of the soil, and cutting of trees further degrades the environment. This is seen world wide in many cultures over thousands of years. On the social level ownership and accumulating possessions become possible, and some division of labor. Initially before real government arises you get what is called "a big man" which is someone who organizes feasts. At this stage power has not really been centralized. I will not cover the whole process but it repeats world wide over most cultures & thousands of years, until you get the mess we have today. Marvin Harris is actually enjoyable to read, and Jarred may have been on the best seller list at one point.
We have recently learned that long periods of sitting are harmful, and so walking desks are now being sold https://www.bing.com/search?q=walking+desk&qs=PA&pq=walking+des&sc=8-11&sp=1&cvid=D8DDDCFFC2FF4C8E9D1CD69D7CBC8E16&FORM=QBLH&ghc=1 so the hunter gather past of long-distance running as in persistence hunting is still part of us genetically. The tendency to over reproduce also seems unchanged in the human species. Some animals regulate their birthrate well, humans it seems not so much. The world wide poverty statistics are horrifying.
In the case of diseases some evolve to become less virulent so as not to kill the host they live in. Others evolve ways to spread themselves, through coughing for example and so may remain deadly. Human birth rate seems to resemble the latter strategy. Unfortunately for us there is only one planet, the environment degrades rapidly, and cities are toxic compared to rural life. They say by 2050 the majority of humans will be living in urban environments. At this point government seems to me not to be the only source of human ills.
Another quick way to explore Marvin Harris's, Jarred Diamond's, and Robin Dunbar's ideas is to read reviews of their books on Amazon.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: laughingdog]
#22502021 - 11/09/15 06:51 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It is an interesting proposal you bring up Laughing dog.
I am not familiar with the writers you mentioned but I think I have heard of Dunbar's number before.
What I am saying is that while it seems reasonable to speculate that the finite possibilities of human beings' faculties, like memory, could establish a baseline which would correlate or cause particular mechanisms, like inclusion and exclusion in socio-political groups, (this would be working with the same finite set for instance) that is still not something I think we have actually observed. The correlation is maybe formally there, but I wonder if you are only drawing this correlation for its seming reductionism.
Sorry if what I am saying is not clear, here is a more free response.
In respect to some of your suggestions of these observations and natural histories of human moral development, I would say they seem to confirm much that we already know. Human beings have a conscious inclination to construct and exercise power relations. What does this say though? Doesn't it suppose some variable about human nature?
I think studies on chimp behavior, are pretty interesting, and I appreciate how they have become broadly appreciable to a certain kind of philosophical discussion; mainly in part, because these studies demonstrate the constraints that may arise when we attempt to describe something familiar or proximate to our own nature.
Chimp politics seem undoubtably to be an arbitrary expression of power and self interest. Can we believe that human politics are really different in mechanism? But then, can we anymore believe that human politics are deducible from this kind of behavior, either?
I would verge back to what you yourself suggest as empirical basis of argument to make my own. It is a possibility, or a variable. In the case of Dunbar's number being a mechanism for a human being's inclusional and exclusional politics - something which I do think can be variably observed - I nonetheless think that this seeming statement about human finitude is speculative.
Appreciate the dialogue Laughing Dog.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: Kurt]
#22502833 - 11/09/15 09:57 PM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
my view is that people evolved to feel comfortable living in groups less than around 150. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number In a group of this size if a young man is behaving badly in the tribe, one knows who his uncle is and goes to him and says: "talk to the boy straighten him out". Everyone knows everyone. There is no need for police, jails, court, judges. All food is shared. Hunter gatherers, such as the south African bushmen have next to no possessions, so no taxes, no theft, no inequality of poor and rich. This is what our genetics are adapted for. Likewise they say we evolved to love the taste of fat and sugary sweetness because they were rare long ago, (and love of sweetness related to eating fresh fruit), but now this neolithic programing we still have leads many to diabetes in a fast food culture.
So it seems to me that very loosely speaking 'evolution' makes experiments and some don't turn out well, or have odd consequences. Stags grow antlers that are so large and ornate they may lock together and cause the death of both, for example. http://ravallirepublic.com/lifestyles/recreation/article_629b79c0-255a-11e2-a310-0019bb2963f4.html http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=7775 In the case of humans it seems to me the brain of which we are so proud, like the deers' antlers, is not well integrated into the life style and environment. The human brain has allowed humans to alter their environment in ways the rest of the animal is not adapted to. We have built cities with so much pollution the air is toxic for example. And nations that go to war. The bushmen do not have these problems.
a funny movie about them: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+gods+must+be+crazy
Within a hunter gatherer environment the dangers of the expanded neocortex, are modulated by all of surrounding nature, and living one's whole life surrounded by family. So there are also no stress disorders, neurosis, depression, etc. No need for gyms and pools and sports.
As a metaphor the story of the expulsion from eden in the bible almost has it right. But we did not choose to eat the apple. The apple of conceptual thought , and tree of knowledge grew inside our heads so to speak. Very loosely speaking it seems only a few meditators in oriental cultures, the Huichol, a few other tribes or cultures perhaps the Bwiti ?, and a few shaman have explored the miracle of consciousness separately from the contents of consciousness. The rest of us, I feel when moody, have got caught up with the contents of our conceptions and enthralled with our abilities to manipulate and control the external world, and in my view the result has been the disaster we pompously call civilization. But I am old, have grown accustomed to conveniences and toys, and am not going back to the wilderness.
In any case as per the subject of the thread, I don't think, any accepted form of government: Republic (which the USA technically is), democracy, communist, socialist, capitalist, etc or any political party can deal with the root issues that confront us.
As regards the issue of power which you bring up, you are certainly correct that it is always a factor. In small groups that depend on cooperation to survive it's worst aspects would seem to be mitigated. It seems natural for children to compete for attention, and if there is an imbalance between the sexes in a population for competition to occur in relation to mating. Perhaps there are some other factors? When men cooperate regularly in the hunt, running down prey (that can't sweat to cool itself) to it's exhaustion, at which point they can finish it off with small spears, it must be butchered on the spot, and meat carried back for miles and there are no hidden possessions of what use is attempting to exercise power? Over what? Whom would one fool? As I'm sure has often been said we as a species have lost our connection with the natural world. It would seem in summary the closer we are to nature the less government is necessary.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: laughingdog]
#22503311 - 11/10/15 01:41 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
my view is that people evolved to feel comfortable living in groups less than around 150.
Would you say this evolutionary behavior, of being comfortable with an in-group, or as well being uncomfortable with what is outside a group of this particular size?
The neocortex evolved to its size arguably for many significant reasons. Is there evidence to suggest that the Dunbar number is not just a biological 'byproduct' we happen to follow, a formal limit of our capacity, but evolution at work?
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: Kurt]
#22503350 - 11/10/15 02:05 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Since DQ started this thread with the allusion to Plato's Philosopher King, how about a quote from the Republic? Here is a great passage on the "guardians" of the polis.
Quote:
Then it will be our duty to select, if we can, natures which are fitted for the task of guarding the city?
It will. And the selection will be no easy matter, I said; but we must be brave and do our best.
We must. Is not the noble youth very like a well-bred dog in respect of guarding and watching?
What do you mean? I mean that both of them ought to be quick to see, and swift to overtake the enemy when they see him; and strong too if, when they have caught him, they have to fight with him.
All these qualities, he replied, will certainly be required by them. Well, and your guardian must be brave if he is to fight well? Certainly. And is he likely to be brave who has no spirit, whether horse or dog or any other animal? Have you never observed how invincible and unconquerable is spirit and how the presence of it makes the soul of any creature to be absolutely fearless and indomitable?
I have. Then now we have a clear notion of the bodily qualities which are required in the guardian.
True. And also of the mental ones; his soul is to be full of spirit? Yes. But are not these spirited natures apt to be savage with one another, and with everybody else?
A difficulty by no means easy to overcome, he replied. Whereas, I said, they ought to be dangerous to their enemies, and gentle to their friends; if not, they will destroy themselves without waiting for their enemies to destroy them.
True, he said. What is to be done then? I said; how shall we find a gentle nature which has also a great spirit, for the one is the contradiction of the other?
True. He will not be a good guardian who is wanting in either of these two qualities; and yet the combination of them appears to be impossible; and hence we must infer that to be a good guardian is impossible.
I am afraid that what you say is true, he replied. Here feeling perplexed I began to think over what had preceded. My friend, I said, no wonder that we are in a perplexity; for we have lost sight of the image which we had before us.
What do you mean? he said. I mean to say that there do exist natures gifted with those opposite qualities.
And where do you find them? Many animals, I replied, furnish examples of them; our friend the dog is a very good one: you know that well-bred dogs are perfectly gentle to their familiars and acquaintances, and the reverse to strangers.
Yes, I know. Then there is nothing impossible or out of the order of nature in our finding a guardian who has a similar combination of qualities?
Certainly not. Would not he who is fitted to be a guardian, besides the spirited nature, need to have the qualities of a philosopher?
I do not apprehend your meaning. The trait of which I am speaking, I replied, may be also seen in the dog, and is remarkable in the animal.
What trait? Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger, is angry; when an acquaintance, he welcomes him, although the one has never done him any harm, nor the other any good. Did this never strike you as curious?
The matter never struck me before; but I quite recognise the truth of your remark.
And surely this instinct of the dog is very charming; --your dog is a true philosopher.
Why? Why, because he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemy only by the criterion of knowing and not knowing. And must not an animal be a lover of learning who determines what he likes and dislikes by the test of knowledge and ignorance?
Most assuredly. And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy?
Platonic; Republic, Book II.
Maybe Plato's philosopher as guardian, suggests the way in groups and outgroups work? Is the knowledge base a virtue, or is it the basis of prejudice just as much in this conception? Or is it neither one the other, but just the line between inner and outer, familiar and unfamiliar, that the philosopher as gaurdian just has to walk?The city or polis needs its guardians. Canis Familiaris, sapient friend.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: Kurt]
#22504304 - 11/10/15 09:55 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I will do my best.
"Would you say this evolutionary behavior, of being comfortable with an in-group, or as well being uncomfortable with what is outside a group of this particular size?"
I think the situation is simpler than you imagine. Tigers are solitary animals. Except when mating, adults shun one another. Herbivores live in herds of thousands. Omnivores like the great apes of africa, and baboons live in troops or groups. It's been that way millions of years. No other animal violates it's nature and calls it an accomplishment.
So to observe these facts we needn't bother with the details of evolution. It is the nature of these animals according to their dietary habits. While it is true that lions live in small groups (as the females cooperate in the hunt). And wolves live in small packs. These groups are very small compared to schools of fish and other prey animals. Most of the cats are solitary hunters like the leopard I believe.
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/wildebeest/ "Their spectacular northward migration in search of greener pastures is dictated by weather patterns, but usually takes place in May or June. It is considered one of the greatest wildlife spectacles on Earth, involving up to 1.5 million wildebeests as well as hundreds of thousands of other animals, including zebra and gazelle"
Most (all?) carnivorous surface dwelling land animals mark their territories with urine and will defend them. By doing this hunting areas are defended. Some animals also defend territory for mating reasons. Obviously this won't make sense for migrating herds of thousands of herbivores.
So yes "uncomfortable with what is outside a group of this particular size" is accounted for by observing animal behavior in general.
If we do consider evolution: Humans were probably mostly fruit and leaf eaters many (30-3?) millions of years ago. After 'leaving' the jungle they became more omnivorous. And on the plains of Africa would have been both prey and predator. And with passing time more predator than prey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution -------------------------- "The neocortex evolved to its size arguably for many significant reasons. Is there evidence to suggest that the Dunbar number is not just a biological 'byproduct' we happen to follow, a formal limit of our capacity, but evolution at work?'
Brain size and intelligence do seem to determine how much data an organism can keep track of.
a couple quotes from this useful link which provides much more detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
… "By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can only comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships.[8] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150…"
"… Dunbar theorized that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size ... the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained…"
in summary: No animal, other than so called "civilized" 'homo sapiens sapiens' violates it's nature and calls it an accomplishment.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: the American political spectrum [Re: laughingdog]
#22504569 - 11/10/15 11:05 AM (8 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, the late night typo probably didn't help. 
I meant to ask the question is this cognitive function of Dunbar's number an exhibited evolutionarily advantageous behavior, or is it on the other hand is it the byproduct of the evolved size of the human neocortex.
For example I can do a certain number of mental permutations at once, and yet I don't think everything I happen to do with my brain is an essential evolutionary trait.
So for instance, is being uncomfortable with a larger group, or particular outgroups something that became a natural form of fitness for humans, confirming that xenophobia, and other mistrustful and fearful attitudes which humans hold, are specifically based on something like Dunbar's number? Or again on the other hand is it simply that we just can't remember more aquaintences, and we forget or are ambivilant to other possibilities, meaning Dunbar's number is more likely a byproduct of the evolved size of the neocortex?
I am just asking for my own clarity if you happen to know. This has to be my last response. Sorry for the misunderstanding, nice talking to you.
|
|