The role of pyschopathy in modern society.

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, September 29, 2025 19:26
VIEWED: 9794
PAGE 1 of 1

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 22, 2008 3:29 PM

I put this one up especially for HKCav, cause this is something we've been pondering and picking at for quite a while, but I think it to be very informative and worth sharing.

Twilight of the Psychopaths
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/02/02073.html

Barrett does a good job of tying the various elements together into a coherent whole which exposes the depth of the problem.

It's worth a read, even if ya don't agree with him 100% - I don't, but overall his points are pretty damn good.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:56 PM

I found the article truly enlightening... So much so, I copied it here. I dispute several points, but agree with the premise: our society is psychopathic.

Twilight of the Psychopaths

Quote:

by Dr. Kevin Barrett

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” – John Lennon, before his murder by CIA mind-control subject Mark David Chapman

When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he said it would be a good idea. But that oft-cited quote, is misleading, assuming as it does that civilization is an unmitigated blessing.

Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.

Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.

The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:

1) Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled, systematic mass murderers;

2) Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize control of their labour power and its fruits);

3) Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes, priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat the process.

Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization — the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers—was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies — especially military hierarchies.

Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.

In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: “Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges” (Grossman, p. 4).

Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)

Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolutio

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:10 PM

Um, ok. So if thats truly the problem... Then whats the solution?

Sorry, getting a little tired of all the talk about whats wrong, without anyone acctually saying how to fix it.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:33 PM

The solution concept is mentioned in the Truancy thread, but if you want more and specific details, just ask.

Solving this problem has been the lifes work of a lot of folk, so there's plenty of info to be had, so much of it that you need to refine your questions so I can provide the most relevant.

-F

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:54 PM

I think as a species what we are seeing is the clash between our evolution and our invention.

Referring back to Jane Goodalls's inadvertent chimp experiment: in order to get a look at chimps (who, up to that point had been frustratingly hiding in the jungle) she enticed them into her clearing with a large pile of fruit. And she spent about a year documenting all sorts of dominance behavior where the largest and most aggressive males would viciously fight to corner the pile. Meanwhile the females, juveniles and more timid chimps cowered in the background. Some tried to cage favor of whomever they thought might win, or might like them, with subservient, appeasing grimaces and cowering behavior; some to thieve errant pieces; and the rest just tried to avoid the widespread fray and protect themselves and their young from random attacks.

Sounds all to human, doesn't it ?

But then she had the good sense to realize that it was abnormal behavior caused by a singular abnormal condition - the highly prized pile of riches in one "easily dominated" (her words) place. Realizing that this was unlike anything found in nature, where fruit is sparse and scattered, she spread the fruit around. And the abnormal behavior disappeared.

Agriculture and subsequent economies are like that pile of fruit. They create an abundance concentrated in one easily dominated pile.

If there was no abundance there would be no problem. If that abundance was scattered there'd be no problem - everyone would have equal access and be replete and happy. But agriculture changed it all, and later agriculturally-based economies are simply following the original model.

We are simply chimps who've created a highly abnormal situation and are now living in it. And it will take at least a few tens of thousands of years for natural selection to solve the problem for us by giving us new mental tools to respond to that pile (or humans will crash and burn before then, and probably carry most of the planet with us).

And here is where the sociopath comes in. Though you can make a sociopath out of some people, not all sociopaths (authoritarians - manipulators) are made - some are born. And though you can make a henchman, not all henchmen (authoritarians - followers) are made - some are born. You can see this in the chimp observations.

What our tasty-pile economies are doing is fostering, rewarding and enforcing abnormal behavior.

But all is not lost.

And I refer to SignyM's recounting of the baboon troop where all the nastiest most aggressive baboons cornered the food dump which contained tainted meat - caught TB from it - and died.

It was a society reborn.

The death rate of females and juveniles dropped dramatically. While males competed with each other they no longer took their aggression out on the helpless and weak. And furthermore, new baboons - even highly aggressive males from other troops - learned that things were done differently in that group, and tempered their behavior accordingly. Even more remarkable, this new society has been passed down generation to generation. As baboon societies go, it's a baboon paradise.

As SignyM has mentioned, societies are sensitive to large non-personal conditions. And they can be remade by reframing those conditions.

Sometimes it happens by revolution. Sometimes by evolution. And I'll leave it to everyone else to come up with the conditions they think might benefit humanity as a whole. (I have some ideas of my own, which I haven't yet concluded - they are an ongoing process.)

But for the history buffs out there - I'd like to test-drive my ideas about modern democracy in the grand scheme of things. My impression is that Canada and the European democracies are much more, well, democratic than the US. I used to think it was b/c they had parliaments which kept the governments on their toes at all times. And, by having actual power over their governments, people were more involved, leading to better democracy ... and so on. I still think that might be a consideration. But I now wond

SWISH

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:21 PM

Good post, Rue.

Interesting article, especially about the insanity of the military, and how our "civilization" promotes some pretty scary behavior. The thing that worries me is how it makes a clean separation between those who are righteous and those who must be stopped, as if there aren't enough of these divisions in the world! The article even seems to suggest tests. Witch hunt much?

I picture something like Scientology's e-meter. You measure less than 3.6 on the psychopath scale and we'll cut your head off! But who's giving the test? And who do you suppose is going to figure out how to beat it?

FLETCH2

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:30 PM

I'm still thinking that with Europe it has more to do with being forced to live together. The American ideal of the empowered individualist is practical because America has the resources and space to support it, the food pile is big enough if you will. Elsewhere people are forced to cooperate more than compete because the resources are not there. In the absence of abundance learning to accept a smaller garenteed share is more logical than bidding to take it all knowing that if you lose there will not be the resources for you to try again. If this is the only food pile there will ever be is it better to work with otherst to garentee you get a share (and thus not starve) or to go out on your own and risk losing everything?

Also European wars killed too many people, over time people got fed up of it. By contrast the US had only one modern war on its mainland

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:37 PM

Dr Kevin Barrett Muslim Non-Jew for Congress
www.barrettforcongress.us

Dr Kevin Barrett Radio Show
Mondays and Fridays, 4-6 p.m. ET
www.gcnlive.com
Wednesdays 8 - 10 pm CT
www.wtprn.com
Archives:
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett08.html
Pacifica 7 days a week, at 6:55am, 8:55am, 10:55am, 4:55pm, 6:55pm, 7:55pm, 9:55pm and 11:55pm CT
www.noliesradio.org
RBN Archives:
www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=archives.year&ProgramID=25&
year=8&backURL=index.php?cmd=archives

Quote:
Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.

Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths.

The only conspiracy that matters is the conspiracy of the psychopaths against the rest of us.

The greatest fear of any psychopath is of being found out. As George H. W. Bush said to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992, “If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.”

CIA agent George Bush Sr in Dealey Plaza for another coup d'etat
www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush2.htm

Less than 20% of soldiers in World War 2 actually pulled a trigger to kill, even when enemy troops were were shooting bullets and killing US troops.

Not enough soldiers were hunters, butchers, boy scouts or NRA members.

Churches did too good a job brainwashing the sheeple to lay down for the psychopaths in their own govt, and censored Biblical authorization to kill in self-defense. Moses delivered the 10 Commandments, after he killed an Egyptian cop. Even Jeses told his disciples to trade their plows for swords.

So DARPA.mil got in the entertainment business...

Visit your local Psychopaths R US store in your Victim Disarmament Zone

And why DARPA made robot Reapers.

MQ-9 Reaper Hunter/Killer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

As Dr Barrett points out, robots attacked USA on 9/11, due to a shortage of psychpaths.

British BAC 1-11 robot drone airliner

Pilotless passenger jet flown remotely by British Royal Air Force
www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/equipmentandlogistics/pilotless
passengerjetflownremotelybyrafinworldfirst.htm
http://piratenews.org/killer-robot-jetplanes.html
http://piratenews.org/flight93.html
http://piratenews.org/911con.html

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:14 PM

Kids may be hardwired to 'share and share alike': study

(Until we teach them greed is good)

Quote:
PARIS (AFP) - Humans are selfish in earliest childhood but by the age of seven or eight are keen to share equally, a developmental change so sudden that it can only be explained, at least in part, by genes, according to a study released Wednesday.

Behavioural scientists and sociologists have quarrelled for decades as to whether generosity and selfishness are inherited or result from social conditioning. But new experiments with 229 Swiss children between the ages of three and eight suggest that Homo sapiens is probably somewhere in between: humans look out for No. 1, but also express, if not outright generosity, at least an aversion to inequality. The study, published in the British journal Nature, could help explain how humans developed the ability to cooperate in large groups of individuals who are unrelated, the researchers say.

The children were asked to take part in three different games. In each game, the child was confronted with two options as to how to distribute portions of jelly beans and other small sweets. He or she was faced with another kid, shown only in a photo to avoid complications arising from face-to-face encounters.

One of the options was the same in all three games: divide the sweets equally. In the first game, the child had the alternate option of keeping a single portion of sweets for himself and giving nothing for the other child. In the second, more sweets were added, and the child had the option of giving the other child two portions and keeping one. And in the third game, the child had the choice of taking two portions and leaving the other child empty-handed.

Lead researcher Ernst Fehr of the University of Zurich said the three- and four-year-olds were consistently motivated by self-interest, with almost no regard for the well-being of the other. The next age bracket was almost as selfish.

"But if we look at the seven-to-eight year olds, a different picture emerges," Fehr told AFP.

In the first game, nearly 80 percent of the older kids made sure the other child got the same amount of sweets rather than none at all. And in the last game, more than 40 percent of them refused to let the other go away with nothing even when they had the opportunity of gaining a double portion by doing so.

By comparison, less than nine percent of three- and four-year-olds were willing to do the same. But generosity had its limits. In the second game, the older children were reluctant to let their counterpart have twice as many as themselves.

'If I can't have more,' their actions seemed to say, 'I don't see why he or she should.'

In an e-mail exchange with AFP, Fehr said the results suggest that Nature and Nurture jointly shaped behavioural responses, although the study was not designed to calculate the share of each influence.

"I think that both genes and culture play a role," Fehr said. The results, he added, suggest that "social norms of equality can come into being even without extended forms of cultural transmission. Nobody would dispute that the sexual maturation of children is driven by biology and genes, so why should other phenotypes -- like those associated with fairness behaviour -- not also be driven by biology and genes?", he asked rhetorically.

At least one result was unexpected, said Fehr: children with no siblings were more, rather than less, generous.

Also, I think this coincides rather interestingly with the concept of the "age of reason". (You Catholics out there would know what I'm talking about.)

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:30 AM

Interesting, but to me, unsurprising.

You know though, isn't is *fascinating* how every time one of these studies is done by folk outside of the american Gov and Education systems, the conclusion is radically different ?

At first blush one might take that to mean americans and their kids are shitheads, which is an entirely plausible theory with a lot of empirical evidence behind it, sure...

Till you start checking into the scientific method of such "studies" and realize that there basically isn't any, IF an actual study was done at all, instead of some slackwit with a degree just quoting their prejudices.

Case in point, the Sembler-Lichfield "All children are lying manipulators" myth.

Firstly, especially amongst the very young, children have a more nebulous distinction between fantasy and reality than us adults do.

Second, the very idea of such manipulation presumes not only deceitful intent, but harmful intent, and implies the ability to remember the falsehood and remain perfectly consistent over a period of time.

And if you buy that, I got some Arizona swampland for ya, cheap.

Most "Behavioral Studies" done here in the States by Gov, Education, or Big Pharma, usually some combination of the three, have a pre-conceived conclusion and mean to damn well reach it in spite of the evidence, scientific method notwithstanding.

I mean, come on, when a "behavioral study" of "problem kids" done by an affliate of the manufacturer of Ritalin concludes that the primary thing wrong with them is that they need to be prescribed Ritalin - wouldn't YOU be a bit skeptical ?

The Swiss, on the other hand, seem to be real sticklers for proper scientific method, and even the British have done some of their own good work on this, finally realizing that, yes virginia, there IS a link between some food additives and behavioral problems in susceptible children....

Something "studies" done by the companies that make them over here say otherwise, but again, doesn't that make you a little skeptical ?

Anyhows, ranting aside, every decent study on this has pretty much gone to support the belief that "Human Nature" is actually fairly benevolent, and that it is the external influences of a society intent on warping/crushing it, and succeeding, which is causing the problem....

Although Nature has her ways too, we've started to see medication-resistant kids recently, and kinda I figured that was only a matter of time.

Quote:
And I refer to SignyM's recounting of the baboon troop where all the nastiest most aggressive baboons cornered the food dump which contained tainted meat - caught TB from it - and died.

The French actually actively TRIED that once, it didn't work out to well in reality, but the concept was there.

I find it ironic to be reminded of that, when I am more or less advocating we exterminate the NeoCons, which amounts to prettymuch the same thing, neh ?

On the idea of Born vs Made...

I don't accept that some children pop out fully formed and functional sociopaths, it just doesn't work like that, and anyone who says so either doesn't understand the subject or is perpetuating a false myth to avoid the hassle of early intervention, in spite of how critical we know it to be.

That's not saying that there are not children born with a predisposition toward such behavior, which is, let us be very clear - NOT the same thing.

If provided with alternatives and encouraged to make use of them, they can turn out completely different, but yes, it does take the investment of more time and effort than simply writing them off, but doing that is in my opinion a boomerang of the meanest form, cause it comes back to haunt us all, doesn't it ?

Likewise, there's been some discussion about "compensated sociopaths" who display a lot of the behaviors, but are neither completely amoral or antisocial, and I have done a bit of my own research on this, because of certain downright fascinating discoveries.

See, conventional wisdom is that these are also born that way, just not fully sucked into t

KWICKO

Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:12 AM

Quote:
Where DID that forty hour work week come from, ehe ?

As well as lunch hours, breaks, vacations, paid overtime, bereavement time, etc.

Next time you get paid time-and-a-half for working more than your 40 hours, or you get paid time off to attend your father's funeral, be sure to thank a union member instead of spitting on him.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 28, 2008 3:12 AM

Gotta do it.

Someday I want to run away
To the world of midnight
Where the darkness fill the air
Where it's icy cold

Where nobody has a name
Where living is not a game
There, I can hide my broken heart
Dying to survive

There, no one can see me cry
The tears of my lonely soul
I'll find peace of mind
In the dark and cold world of midnight

.....
It's from Episode 15 of Black Lagoon, the end of a seriously disturbing arc that's actually related to the subject of this thread.
(WARNING: *NOT* for the faint of heart)

Having just watched it, I wanna say something, but ain't sure how - the arc covers everything from how they come to be, to how dangerous they are, all the way to how much of a heartbreaking waste it is for folk to let it happen.

It's a mark against us as human beings that in the real world, such stories are not as rare as they should be.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:09 AM

Hello,

If you all don't mind me advocating for the devil, I'd like to propose that what you are referring to as sociopathy and psychopathy sounds a lot like:

"People who can do what is necessary to achieve their objectives and/or thrive in difficult circumstances."

In which case, 'sociopathy' and 'psychopathy' sound a lot like survival traits to me. Seems to me the French and the Soviets might have benefitted from a 100% fire rate rather than a 20% fire rate amongst its front-line riflemen when fighting off a Nazi invasion. It might have saved them a lot of grief.

When you bandy about words like 'sociopath' and 'psychopath,' you end up creating an impression of ruthless evil, but you may actually be describing efficiency in action.

I would like to propose that there may be people who can do what is necessary to survive and thrive, who seem to meet your definition of sociopath and psychopath, but who do not actively seek the course of greatest human suffering.

I honestly believe that the military (and indeed society at large) contains efficient killers who are also great husbands, fathers, and friends. People who can execute a perceived threat, but would prefer to be shaking someone's hand rather than chopping it off.

I think there are people who might be labeled a deviant personality by an indiscriminate observer, but who simply have the valuable capacity to set aside their emotions long enough to take the actions necessary for their survival, and the survival and well-being of their people.

Is that possible?

Because it seems to me that the 80% of soldiers who were incapable of firing their weapons even to save themselves and their friends... they are going to be selected for removal from the gene pool if they ever encounter a threat that can't be reasoned with.

--Anthony

P.S. It is actually heartening to me to hear the theory on 'learned' sociopathy or psychopathy. It suggests that those of us without the predisposition might be able to learn how to protect ourselves and our loved ones in the face of violence, hopefully without self-destructing our sanity.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:16 AM

Quote:
The French actually actively TRIED that once, it didn't work out to well in reality, but the concept was there.

Hardly. A revolution is a way of one frustrated ruling class subjugating the desires of the downtrodden to replace the current ruling class. Violent revolutions tend to produce poor systems in practice simply because they're instigated by the same sort of people that they're replacing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:12 PM

Anthony - Ya might wanna do a bit more research on the topic, cause what defines a sociopath as opposed to someone who, as you say "can do what must be done", is a lack of emotional attachment to other human beings, in fact the lack of even that ability.

As is well known amongst army "five percenters" there's no encouragement to support their fellow troops for this reason, and while they are capable of mercilessly cutting down the enemy, unspoken military SOP is NOT to promote known five-percenters to command positions due to the really obvious potential for disaster looming there.

Quote:
I think there are people who might be labeled a deviant personality by an indiscriminate observer, but who simply have the valuable capacity to set aside their emotions long enough to take the actions necessary for their survival, and the survival and well-being of their people.

Is that possible?

Absolutely, but those people are not by any definition sociopathic, simply by merit of the fact that they have those emotional capabilities.

And that is the key difference, a true sociopath is pure predator, by a combination of physical, chemical, genetic and environmental factors, utterly incapable of feeling emotion for another human being.

What defines is for me behaviorally is the intent to advance their own cause regardless of harm done to others, or even delighting in the harm done to others, because those others... are just mere objects to them, they don't have a concept of "people", it's alien to their way of thinking, all they see is potential resources, which they move to exploit, or potential resistance, which they move to eliminate.

But they don't never, EVER see you as a person, they can't, it's just not in them.

Now as for compensated, there's a couple ways that splits.

Firstoff, you have folks with most of the physical, chemical, genetic and environmental factors present, but not a sufficiency to cause this, and usually some internal or outside factor in place early enough to cause an alternate development.

Most have a damaged or crippled ability to bond with other humans, but due to the perversities of human nature, that lack often causes them to try all the harder, and much of their aberrant behavior comes from feelings of frustration and alienation rather than avarice or malice.

They also tend to be emotionally stunted, which may cause they to react differently to emotional events, that's highly dependant on the individual, of course.

Second, you have folks with just a few of the factors present, and barring any intensive-trauma "trigger" events during the developmental period, generally wind up as "normal" as anyone really does, barring an odd quirk of behavior here and there.

And third, you have folks with NO factors present whatever, who are displaying the classic behavior because that it what they have been "taught", regardless of whether it was intentional or not, is the proper behavior to be admired, respected and successful in our society.

It's that third group that concerns me the most, since public school seems to produce them in droves, all it takes is one popular sociopath allowed to roam free cause they are popular or have wealthy, politically/socially connected folks, and you get a whole pack of emulators, who's behavior DOES calcify significantly in the post-puberty ages.

Side note: Why "gangsta" culture is so dangerous is also directly related to that same phenomena, learned sociopathy included.

There's a huge difference, Anthony, between doing what one has to in order to survive, and doing harm to others for personal gain or even entertainment.

It's that critical difference, which the deciding factor.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:17 PM

Quote:
A revolution is a way of one frustrated ruling class subjugating the desires of the downtrodden to replace the current ruling class. Violent revolutions tend to produce poor systems in practice simply because they're instigated by the same sort of people that they're replacing.

I don't buy that - while I admit that this is often the case, I will not accept that it is ALWAYS the case.

Counterpoint: Anarchist Catalonia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

Very complicated situation, true - but when fighting what (to them) amounted to a five front war, they did pretty well, all things considered.

One might take that as every other faction being wanna-be ruling classes, freaking out at the dire threat of people who wanted NO ruling class.

Sure explains why even their "allies" turned on em, doesn't it ?

-Frem

Dame Vaako: "You don't pray to their god, you pray to no god, or so I hear."
Aereon: "Elementals... we calculate."

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't buy that - while I admit that this is often the case, I will not accept that it is ALWAYS the case.

Counterpoint: Anarchist Catalonia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

Very complicated situation, true - but when fighting what (to them) amounted to a five front war, they did pretty well, all things considered.

One might take that as every other faction being wanna-be ruling classes, freaking out at the dire threat of people who wanted NO ruling class.

Sure explains why even their "allies" turned on em, doesn't it ?

Now explain to me where I said always rather than tends too.

Specifically you mentioned the French Revolution, after which France ended up as a what?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:34 PM

AnthonyT

If a sociopath is a person who does what must be done in order to survive - then sociopaths should all be super-cooperative.

Somehow when the issue of 'survival' comes up it automatically gets assumed to be about deadly competition between individuals. But survival - especially of the next generation, and the next, and the next ... (which is where evolution functions) - can be enhanced by cooperation and mutualism.

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

RUE

Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:06 PM

You know Frem, there's a lot of good research coming out of the US on social cooperation. It took me no time at all to find these, I could have posted more, but I'm on my lunch break.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041007085415.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080319142358.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051220182334.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129111632.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080501163455.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070121162756.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070614151757.htm

OTOH, many EARLY US studies which you cite were based on even earlier European studies and theories - alpha males, social Darwinism, Freud and his theory of the id, to point out a few.

It wasn't until the 1970's that social cooperation began to be examined by serious academics pretty much anywhere. And that led to game theory and mathematical modeling on the survival benefits of cooperation, on searches for brain areas and functions that specialize in cooperation etc.

Which is not to say that some other societies aren't more cooperative than the US. But the US isn't the exclusive purveyor sociopathy, and those other countries aren't the exclusives purveyors of cooperation and trust, either. If you look back at the authoritarian paper, you'll see that even pacific Canada has its share at the end of the bell curve.

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

RUE

Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:19 PM

And a final reply for now - anyone who says homosexuality is a human social condition just needs to look at the research and observations of animal homosexuality. And there you will see its biological roots.

The same could be said about sociopathy. Now, we will never be able to go up to a chimp and ask - and how did that make you feel ? But there are wild chimps that seem to be randomly violent to the weak and helpless, to the point of appearing intentionally cruel. And they will do that even when peaceability would gain them so much more.

As for the other chimps, if the miscreant is smaller, he (I've only seen males behave like that though there might be females as well) will be marginalized. If he's big and strong and somehow attains 'leader' status he'll be -- overtly endured and covertly undermined. Yep, those females and other males will sneak off for quiet time together.

The main difference I see between us and chimps is that we set up structures that carry forward beyond any individual. Their sociopathy doesn't die with them. But that gets into the topic of the baboons and what does it take to revamp a society, which is too long for me to go into now.

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:42 PM

Quote:
OTOH, many EARLY US studies which you cite were based on even earlier European studies and theories - alpha males, social Darwinism, Freud and his theory of the id, to point out a few.

Yeah, that whole "better men" and "born bad" crap that drives me so bonkers, prettymuch theoretically unchanged from the days of european nobility, bleh.

Thanks for the links, btw.. fascinating, though unsurprising, mostly.

Oh, and Cit ?

The French Revolution was one of them things that start for the best of reasons, but ran into that whole pesky unintended consequences thing - and from my understanding of it, about 2/3rds of the way through they realized the folks they were about to replace the nobility with were indeed just as bad and started lopping THIER heads off, and then it just became total chaos...

But you know, in the end, I bet they did manage to kill off a damn lot of the most warlike among them, which, given the historical record of French military conflicts, probably did them a favor.

The only thing worse than a warmonger, is an INCOMPETENT warmonger.

(Yes, that whole bit was just a wee lil bit sarcastic.)

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:16 PM

Hello,

So, what about the 80% of soldiers on the front line who could not bring themselves to fire their weapons, even when it was a really good idea?

Are we concerned at all about that statistic?

It seems to me that having a 5 percent Wolf population would not be so scary if 80% were not Sheep. (Apparently, 15% could become Wolves as needed.)

I'd love to believe that peaceful cooperation is the singular exclusive trait of survival for the future of the human race, but I frequently observe situations where judicious use of violence would be helpful. I see people sitting here worried about a minority who use violence without discrimination, and are glossing over the majority who are incapable of using violence even to save themselves.

If one extreme is an aberration, isn't the other extreme equally bad? Shouldn't we be worried about the crippled majority?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:02 PM

AnthonyT

There is a whole body of analysis on the role of 'cheaters' - those who don't live by the cooperative norm, who feed without remorse on others. The most recent mathematics - which I don't pretend to understand - indicates that due to the existence of 'durable goods' it's possible for cheaters to thrive on the goods left behind by cooperators, until there are so many of them (the cheaters) who are unwilling to maintain the system that the system itself crashes.

The outcome is a boom and bust cycle for economies, cultures and civilizations. Looking at history, I think there's ample evidence that such cycles occur. SOME civilizations figure a way out of that - some examples are given in the book Collapse, authored by Jared Diamond.

But the end result is that the capability to BE a cheater remains embedded in humanity at low levels. It never quite dies out. So it's up to society - that's us - to be smart enough and keep the cheaters from being empowered to - start wars for example.

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:04 PM

Quote:
I'd love to believe that peaceful cooperation is the singular exclusive trait of survival for the future of the human race, but I frequently observe situations where judicious use of violence would be helpful. I see people sitting here worried about a minority who use violence without discrimination, and are glossing over the majority who are incapable of using violence even to save themselves.

I've long wondered if the downfall of the human species will come about NOT because we're so "warlike" but because we're TOO willing to believe what others tell us... as opposed to the evidence of our senses. It's a blessing and a curse. It allows us to build on abstract/ useful concepts like "electrons", but also on abstract/ dysfunctional concepts like "corporations".

After all, if 99% are getting screwed over (and I believe we are) then why are the 1% still in power?

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:07 PM

Interesting point, Rue.

Alas, one of the "durable goods" that cooperators create is "language".

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, and Cit ?

The French Revolution was one of them things that start for the best of reasons, but ran into that whole pesky unintended consequences thing - and from my understanding of it, about 2/3rds of the way through they realized the folks they were about to replace the nobility with were indeed just as bad and started lopping THIER heads off, and then it just became total chaos...

But you know, in the end, I bet they did manage to kill off a damn lot of the most warlike among them, which, given the historical record of French military conflicts, probably did them a favor.

The only thing worse than a warmonger, is an INCOMPETENT warmonger.

(Yes, that whole bit was just a wee lil bit sarcastic.)

Sure, but doesn't that kinda prove my point?

The next century of French history is them lurching from one military dictatorship to another...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I've long wondered if the downfall of the human species will come about NOT because we're so "warlike" but because we're TOO willing to believe what others tell us... as opposed to the evidence of our senses. It's a blessing and a curse. It allows us to build on abstract/ useful concepts like "electrons", but also on abstract/ dysfunctional concepts like "corporations".

After all, if 99% are getting screwed over (and I believe we are) then why are the 1% still in power?

Corporations aren't so bad. It's the mistaken belief that Markets should be completely deregulated because they always produce optimal results that causes the problems, a fact most economists seem to be realising.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 29, 2008 3:57 AM

Quote:
Sure, but doesn't that kinda prove my point?

The next century of French history is them lurching from one military dictatorship to another...

Ayeah, and run by the least warlike remainder of a folk that was militarily incompetent in the first place, meh heh heh...

The French do love their irony, don't they ?

Also, Anthony ?

There's a difference between someone defending home and hearth, willing to bust caps over it - and a draftee forced under threat of arms to serve in a foreign country in a war they do not necessarily believe is a good idea, busting caps at people under orders.

You might find, at least in the vietnam war, that many of the folk unwilling to pull a trigger on the NVA, were in fact more than willing to pull it on their own officers had they thought it possible to get away with it.

That's one of the better reasons for not using conscripts, actually, and I am sure the practice had a great deal to do with folks unwilling to fire at people they might have had less of a gripe with then their own nominal superiors.

Worth a second thought, that is.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Friday, August 29, 2008 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ayeah, and run by the least warlike remainder of a folk that was militarily incompetent in the first place, meh heh heh...

The French do love their irony, don't they ?

I'm not sure about that, Napolean was far from 'the least warlike remainder' nor 'militarily incompetent'. In fact it was his military genius that very nearly swept Europe aside in a conflict only matched by the First and Second World Wars over a century later.

It took a coalition of every surviving major European nation led by the British to halt Napolean. His namesake of the Third French Empire in the 1860's wasn't all that much better either.

As for Irony, I find it ironic that it was the success of the American War of Independence, something probably not possible if it weren't for French Assistance, that gave the French the idea in the first place. An early form of political foreign policy blowback perhaps?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:45 AM

So, to move on forward ...

WHY doesn't revolution help humans quite so effectively as eliminating violent baboons did ?

Well, I think that it's because humans build languages, ideas, impersonal social structures and rules, and even physical goods. Unlike baboons and chimps, with these we humans carry the past into the future even after the sociopath is gone.

And as I mentioned above, the capacity to be sociopathic resides at a residual level in our genes. If we didn't have the genes for it, it would be impossible. It would be like expecting a species without eyes to see.

So the genetic endowment is there in at least some of us, and simply getting rid of the sociopaths doesn't work over the long haul.

There was another study which I found interesting. In it people from 'non-monetary' societies were asked to play a sharing game. These societies ran the gamut - from small independent family groups in sharp competition with other families in the jungle, to small villages of herdsmen jostling with fellow villagers for status but quite eager to share with people from other villages who couldn't threaten their standing, to fishing communities competing with other fishing communities for food resources, to African villages where hunted food was shared equally no matter who did the hunting and the sharing was enforced by everyone in the village, and so on. The game was partly to see what was considered 'fair'.

But among the background facts was that the researchers could find NO correlation between physical economy and social structure. What mattered to people in terms of how they divided up resources was WHAT THEY TOLD THEMSELVES 'PEOPLE' WERE LIKE. In fact, while all sorts of economic arrangements were equally viable, each group lived by what they considered to be the model of 'human nature' and 'what the world is like'. So I find arguments based on 'human nature' to be irrelevant. (That includes social Darwinism arguments for capitalism which claim that it's 'natural'.)

What we tell ourselves we are like is more important than anything else.

And I'll have to get back to this later.

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:53 AM

Hello,

That last statement reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere, but cannot attribute:

"You are what you pretend to be."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:37 AM

Quote:
"You are what you pretend to be."

Vonnegut.

Mike

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, August 30, 2008 4:25 AM

Goes right back to one of my favorite things to say...

"I don't care what you BELIEVE, I care what you DO."

Usually followed by the less common, but still heartfelt...

"What you do, is who you are."

It is by a persons conduct that we determine the truth of them, not intent, not belief, or what they say - in the end, it's what they DO, that matters.

That's kinda how I wound up with the UU, but that tale for another time.

-F

RUE

Saturday, September 6, 2008 4:43 AM

It's been a while since I've been here, but it wasn't for lack of interest.

My idea lies somewhere between "man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal" (Heinlein) and "we are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be" (Vonnegut).

There are limits to thought. Roughly 90% of what goes on inside us isn't accessible by thought. And no matter how much we pretend, we'll never sprout wings and fly. On the other hand, what we tell ourselves the world is and who we are - our paradigms - determines whether we'll rip the still-beating hearts out of captives to sacrifice to the gods, or be able to entrust our children to strangers on the sidewalk while we shop in the store.

What I hope I was doing was bringing up the problem with paradigms.

And here is where I'm going with that - paradigms are like species. They originate from pervasive and therefore imperceptible environmental characteristics - the drift of continents, the invention of agriculture; from very immediate and trivial influences - the color of a feather, the presence of a particular leader; and anything in between.

But once formed, we humans imbue our paradigms with permanence: humans do these things we do because of reincarnation, or the gods, or god, or because it's human nature, or that's the way the world works. Always has been, always will be, forever and ever, amen.

And we live by them, support them, teach our children them, kill and die to defend them - clueless to the fact that they are near-random in their origins, and that pretty much anything in the full range of human behavior is equally possible. We are like horses with blinkers on - useful, tractable and not free.

Anyway, I'll need to get back to this later.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, September 6, 2008 5:06 AM

Hello,

That's kind of beautiful, the way you eloquently stated your case there.

It actually reminds me of Dianetics. Please don't become angry or offended by the referene. I had the pleasure of reading a very old copy of Dianetics before I learned it was the Bible to a wacky religion. Some of the details of Dianetics are poppycock, but there's an underlying philosophy that's right on.

In the book Dianetics, the concept exists that we humans are like robots, fulfilling programming that we're not even aware of. The idea is that throughout our lives and perhaps especially in the early years, we are exposed to experiences that shape us. Not all of these experiences are positive, and most of their effects are subconscious. We are often not even aware of the plethora of programming that drives us, and so we find ourselves helpless to direct the course of our lives.

The basic premise of Dianetics, and here I strip away the weird details and psychological missteps, is that we need to figure out what is driving us, acknowledge it, and discard it if it isn't helpful. The Dianetic ideal is to be a person of reason, 'clear' from all the subconscious drivers and programs directing our behavior, so that we can choose, free for the first time, what it is exactly that we wish to do.

It's too bad Dianetics didn't stick to that basic idea, instead descending into pseudo-hypnosis and wacky theories and apparently eventually devolving into a religion about Mr. X from Planet Y and the Alien people Z and using a tricorder to read your hoopla, etc.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, September 6, 2008 11:20 AM

Same basic premise as me banging the "question all that you perceive" drum alla time.

My niece is especially helpful in this, as children don't have a lotta preconceptions that adults do, and is quite fond of the phrase...
"That doesn't make any sense!"

Outta the mouths of babes, I tellya.

-F

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, September 8, 2008 1:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

...It's a blessing and a curse. It allows us to build on abstract/ useful concepts like "electrons", but also on abstract/ dysfunctional concepts like "corporations".

After all, if 99% are getting screwed over (and I believe we are) then why are the 1% still in power?

The 1% are still in power because they have the 'money' (GOLD) , the Guns , and the Gorramned Lawyers...

Heck , a LOT of 'em ARE Lawyers !

BTW , Frem , I still want to ask...Just WHAT IS 'Piss-Shop-athy' , anyway ?

RUE

Monday, September 8, 2008 2:01 AM

Hi SignyM

In your one post are you referring to the study of human children and chimps (?) where the chimps quickly figured out which actions were bogus while the children kept doing the same things over by rote, even when they could see that certain actions were pointless ?

Also, I think that science has an essential difference from other paradigms. It requires that you test and check your ideas against reality in different ways. In that way it differs from belief.

And still, despite that, the person who sees what everyone else sees but in a new way is the one who makes the breakthroughs - Newton and gravity (though he didn't discover what gravity is, he mathematically described the motion of two objects toward each other - the apple to the earth, and the infinitesimal motion of the earth to the apple); and Darwin and natural selection magnifying small differences into distinct species.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Monday, September 8, 2008 2:32 AM

To continue on forward ----

I think that it's pretty obvious to everyone at this point that I find the unexamined paradigm to be the major human failing.

As I mentioned in another thread, the overwhelming human history has been one of societal extinction - of families, groups, tribes, villages, cultures and civilizations. Over all the millennia of humanity nothing is left but the most recent versions. Societies however large or small may go on for 100 years, or 500, or 1000, but they then fail, usually leaving nothing behind, occasionally empty skeletons and, very rarely, rubble or buildings. But of their culture, there is no remnant in current society. And so we don't honor Isis, or Hunab Ku. Their ideas died with them.

In his book 'Collapse' Jared Diamond examines the factors contributing to societies that collapsed - and compares them to societies that didn't. But the distinguishing feature of the successful societies is that instead of marching to their cultural drummer right over the cliff, they followed their paradigms up to the edge ....... and stepped back. They realized that they couldn’t go on in the same way indefinitely. They had to reexamine core values and assumptions, and change them in order to survive. And they did.

Now, in Diamond's book the failed paradigms weren't necessarily sociopathic, sometimes they were just mal-adapted (real Greenlanders keep dairy cows and don't eat fish !). But in the US I see a lot of pernicious paradigms fueling our culture and economy, that one way or another aren't sustainable and will lead us over the metaphorical cliff, if we chose to follow them.

I've been working on a list, but it's not complete, and it's late, so it will have to wait for later.

But I really hope other people chime in on this whole topic.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Monday, September 8, 2008 3:46 AM

Hello,

I'm not sure I can agree with the idea of societies dying without a trace.

When a society dies from anything other than an all-sweeping instantaneous disaster, the people from that society move on and create a new society.

That new society, being made by people from the last society, carries on and evolves the culture of the last society. They no doubt adapt beliefs and practices to their new environs and situation, but I doubt they forget everything they ever knew or believed when they are starting over.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Monday, September 8, 2008 5:18 AM

Many... prolly most... societies have disappeared w/o meaningful continuation. Thousands of native american cultures disappeared and the only trace they left behind was quaint place-names like Cheektowaga and Miami and Ohio.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, September 8, 2008 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Many... prolly most... societies have disappeared w/o meaningful continuation. Thousands of native american cultures disappeared and the only trace they left behind was quaint place-names like Cheektowaga and Miami and Ohio.

Or , Miami of Ohio...

http://www.miami.muohio.edu /

" Miami to add Tibetan study abroad program...

Miami University has signed a memorandum of understanding with The Institute of Buddhist Dialectics (IBD) and the College for Higher Tibetan Studies (CHTS) to establish a semester-long study program for Miami students in Dharamasala, India. "

College for Higher Tibetan Studies ?

Wonder if they do field trips on the Tibetan Plateau ?

That's pretty high in the first place...

ANTHONYT

Monday, September 8, 2008 5:53 AM

Hello,

That's true. But then there are other types of societies that still persist because their people moved on, reformed, adapted, resettled, and changed as needed... but also carried on some aspect of what they were. One might say their respective societies didn't die, but rather evolved.

The Middle East seems to have some examples of this, with Jewish and Muslim societies that carry on from ancient sources. Farther East, places like India still carry on customs and practices from before Christ. Even though the Modern India and Israel and Palestine are not the same as their ancient ancestral nations, can we not say they are the continuing evolution of those ancient societies?

And so, isn't every nation with a strong Christian heritage also carrying on some ancient Jewish traditions, preserving a part of an ancient society?

And even if Germany were to mysteriously disappear tomorrow, wouldn't we be carrying on a small part of their culture every time we bite into a Big Mac or a Bratwurst?

Don't we recall traditions from ancient Greece and Rome when we go to a Ballpark, Football Game, or Concert Hall?

While I wished that ancient societies and civilizations were better preserved, I can't buy into the fact that they vanish without a trace. We are them. Even most genocides were incomplete (although the Spanish tried *hard* here in the Americas.)

If anything, human society, during its short existence, has proven resilient and adaptive, and I think we do see echoes of ancient lost societies even in our present lives.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, September 8, 2008 6:50 PM

Quote:
In your one post are you referring to the study of human children and chimps (?) where the chimps quickly figured out which actions were bogus while the children kept doing the same things over by rote, even when they could see that certain actions were pointless ?

Could y'all get me a copy of or link to that study ?

I wanna look it over, cause I have found that while many humans may react that way, SOME do not, and those do seem to be the vessels for such sea changes that you speak of...

Be useful to know if there was some early identifying characteristics, yes ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 10:45 PM

Hi AnthonyT

Sorry for the confusion.

Some civilizations do indeed die out by having all or most of their people die - for example the Greenlanders who went extinct, or the Easter Islanders who were reduced to very low numbers surviving in part on cannibalism.

But the broad sweep of history shows that cultures die out without a trace.

For example, the Egyptian Empire in the form we know it - with hawk-faced gods and mummies and so on - lasted from about 2300 BC to about 900 BC. That's a long time. And it still existed a short while ago, relatively speaking, only 3000 years more or less. But if you were to look at Egypt today for some trace of that Egyptian culture, I'm not sure you could find it. No one worships those gods (they are now Muslim mostly Sunni 90%, Coptic 9%, other Christian 1%), speaks that language, writes in hieroglyphics, builds pyramids, or obeys a pharaoh.

And it's a similar story for the thousands on thousands of cultures that have ever existed over the entire time of the human species.

So my point is that our ideas of the world and ourselves, which we tend to think of as coming from some universal permanent place (the gods, human nature), are insubstantial temporary things.

With that in mind, it might be helpful to examine them in that light.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Sunday, September 21, 2008 8:26 PM

I haven't forgotten to post a list of our dangerous unexamined paradigms - but in the meantime I've been diverted by a secondary idea that I don't have time to pursue in a rigorous way (if only I was retired ...)

For anyone who's familiar with modeling or knows something about it ... (SignyM, Finn, Citizen) ... a very crude type of modeling is simplex optimization. It seems to me simplex optimization has a lot in common with evolution: the result can be influenced by starting point (existing species in a static system), discreteness of steps (both are discreet), size of step (small existing variations in a population v major mutation), direction of step (toward or away from optimum), number of dimensions (both accommodate n dimensions or in the case of species evolution, many characteristics), and most importantly, given the above factors, the greater or lesser chance that the result will settle on a local optimum rather than the maximum.

I did a quick search and couldn’t find any studies about this topic directly. Any thoughts on the usefulness of a variant of simplex optimization as a model for evolution ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SWISH

Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I did a quick search and couldn’t find any studies about this topic directly. Any thoughts on the usefulness of a variant of simplex optimization as a model for evolution ?

Uh... I don't know about that, and I'm not even sure what this thread is about,

but I must butt in to say that some years back I wrote a genetic algorithm to solve an optimization problem. So, the evolutionary process served as a basis for a computer program to do inverse modeling. It was cool. Geek heaven.

http://www.obitko.com/tutorials/genetic-algorithms/ga-basic-descriptio
n.php

KIRKULES

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

for example the Greenlanders who went extinct,

That's what they say about Neanderthal Man. I still don't believe it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-neanderthal9-2008aug09,0,25
05489.story

Tonight 9:00pm National Geographic Channel
Neanderthal Code
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/neanderthal-code-3228/Ov
erview?sicontent=0&sicreative=2606220592&siclientid=804&sitrackingid=44778626&source=sem_ngc_83

CITIZEN

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
That's what they say about Neanderthal Man. I still don't believe it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-neanderthal9-2008aug09,0,25
05489.story

Tonight 9:00pm National Geographic Channel
Neanderthal Code
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/neanderthal-code-3228/Ov
erview?sicontent=0&sicreative=2606220592&siclientid=804&sitrackingid=44778626&source=sem_ngc_83

Well, the fact that the Original Norse settlers on Greenland died out isn't in the slightest open for dispute. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have missed a couple of Vikings running around Greenland.

Don't believe what you like. I don't see any Neanderthals running around, and your cites support that position.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
That's what they say about Neanderthal Man. I still don't believe it.

Well, the fact that the Original Norse settlers on Greenland died out isn't in the slightest open for dispute. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have missed a couple of Vikings running around Greenland.

Don't believe what you like. I don't see any Neanderthals running around, and your cites support that position.

I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. It's not impossible for a culture/society to move without becoming extinct. Just like it's possible that Neanderthal interbred with modern man instead of going extinct. I realise that the evidence is pointing the other way, but the possibility still exists.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:36 PM

Quote:
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have missed a couple of Vikings running around Greenland.

They do tend to stand out, don't they ?

Quote:
I don't see any Neanderthals running around

Umm, have you ever been to the southeastern quarter of the US, Citizen ?

Hell, I might be able to dig you up some homo erectus if you go deep enough into the backwoods.

Plenty of homo redneckius down there too, which is widely suspected to be an offshoot or subspecies of erectus, although due to inbreeding the specific genetics are a bit murky.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. It's not impossible for a culture/society to move without becoming extinct. Just like it's possible that Neanderthal interbred with modern man instead of going extinct. I realise that the evidence is pointing the other way, but the possibility still exists.

Not really, we know the Russian's moved, where as the Greenlander's had nowhere to go.

As for Neanderthals, there's none left alive, so whether they interbred with Homosapians or not it largely irrelevant. They no longer exist, ergo they are extinct. That's what extinct means. There's evidence that some Dinosaur species evolved into birds, but Dinosaurs are also extinct.

Besides as your source says:

Quote:
"Neanderthals made no lasting contribution to the modern human [maternal] DNA gene pool," a team of German, American, Croatian and Finnish researchers wrote in Friday's edition of the journal Cell.

Beyond that the definition for a species is the ability to breed and produce viable fertile offspring. For Neanderthals to have made a contribution to the Human genome they'd have to have been the same species, they weren't.

CITIZEN

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Umm, have you ever been to the southeastern quarter of the US, Citizen ?

Does Atlanta count? The thing that struck me most, besides the heat and not being allowed a fucking beer on Sunday, bastards, was the level of racial segregation there.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There's evidence that some Dinosaur species evolved into birds, but Dinosaurs are also extinct.

If birds are Dinosaurs, which I do believe, they certainly are not extinct.

CITIZEN

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:52 PM

Birds aren't extinct, but dinosaurs are.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Birds aren't extinct, but dinosaurs are.

So if we decide to change the name Dog, to Cat. Dogs become extinct?

CITIZEN

Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
So if we decide to change the name Dog, to Cat. Dogs become extinct?

Err, no. I think you'll find the differences between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Sparrow run a little deeper than their name. But if Dogs evolved into some other species, and the original members of the Dog species died out (which is a sub-species of wolves, so erm, whatever) then yeah, Dogs would be extinct.

Just because an offshoot species that has evolved from another still exists, doesn't mean the original still does. Birds may have evolved from Dinosaurs, but they AREN'T dinosaurs.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
So if we decide to change the name Dog, to Cat. Dogs become extinct?

Err, no. I think you'll find the differences between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Sparrow run a little deeper than their name. But if Dogs evolved into some other species, and the original members of the Dog species died out (which is a sub-species of wolves, so erm, whatever) then yeah, Dogs would be extinct.

Just because an offshoot species that has evolved from another still exists, doesn't mean the original still does. Birds may have evolved from Dinosaurs, but they AREN'T dinosaurs.

So even though all human ancestor are Apes, humans aren't Apes? Even though all bird ancestors are dinosaurs, their not dinosaurs?

KIRKULES

Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:27 PM

oops

CITIZEN

Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
So even though all human ancestor are Apes, humans aren't Apes? Even though all bird ancestors are dinosaurs, their not dinosaurs?

We all evolved from single celled micro-organisms if you go back far enough. Are you a Paramecium?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
So even though all human ancestor are Apes, humans aren't Apes? Even though all bird ancestors are dinosaurs, their not dinosaurs?

We all evolved from single celled micro-organisms if you go back far enough. Are you a Paramecium?

Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium. When T-Rex went extinct, Dinosaurs did'nt become extinct. If Sparrows become the last surviving birds on Earth,Dinosaurs won't be extinct. When the last bird on Earth dies, Dinosaurs become extinct.

Edit: I do concede that even if Neanderthal interbred with modern humans, they are extinct. Just not a genetic dead end.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, September 22, 2008 7:57 AM

Citizen

Quote:
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have missed a couple of Vikings running around Greenland.

Fremdfirma

Quote:
They do tend to stand out, don't they ?

Boy do they ever!

Wild Vikings to be deported
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/08/31/vikings-deport.html

Canadian immigration officials decided Thursday to deport two members of the Norwegian Wild Vikings, after their captain admitted to hiding a crew member from RCMP in two Nunavut communities.

Wild Vikings captain Jarle Andhoy and fellow adventurer Jeffrey Kane were ordered deported by Immigration Canada officials at a hearing Thursday in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut.

Wild Vikings captain Jarle Andhoy, who appeared at an immigration hearing Thursday in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, said he didn't feel he had to register his crew with officials.

The Wild Vikings — a five-man crew best known for their wild antics at sea, as documented on Norwegian television — had been trying to sail through the Northwest Passage on Andhoy's sailboat, the Beserk II.

RCMP arrested them in the western Nunavut hamlet on Aug. 24 while disembarking the Beserk II, after they failed to register their presence in Cambridge Bay and Gjoa Haven.

But Andhoy, 29, told CBC News Thursday that he did not feel they had to register.

"We are not here to visit Canada. We are here to do a transit to the Pacific," Andhoy said. "We're sailing the Northwest Passage and as far as I'm concerned the Northwest Passage is international."

An immigration official at Thursday's hearing concluded that Andhoy had misled RCMP in Nunavut about his crew, as he was hiding a member who had been ordered deported when the Wild Vikings stopped in Halifax earlier this year.

Canadian officials had found that crew member, along with another, to be a Norwegian associate of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang.

Andhoy then sailed to Greenland, where he picked up the deported crew member and began sailing through the Northwest Passage. Andhoy admitted that he dropped off the illegal member on land before arriving at Gjoa Haven and Cambridge Bay.

"I wanted to avoid a confrontation," he said. "That didn't really work out."

But Kane, who plans to fly back to his home in the U.S., said Andhoy should have registered the Wild Vikings crew with immigration officials.

"I think it was a major error on the captain's part," Kane said. "I'm a captain myself and I do not make those mistakes."

The remaining three crew members are scheduled to appear at immigration hearings Friday in Cambridge Bay.

Immigration officials say Andhoy also did not disclose an illegal handgun to police. An official with the Canada Border Services Agency says criminal charges are pending.
========================

As an afterthought, being hassled, shaken down, poked at and spied upon when you're just passing through like that... hell they did everything but smack em with extortive tolls, or at least it's not mentioned in the story here.

I can see a certain justification for town-sacking, you ask me.

I can just see it, too.

"ARRGGH!!!, that's IT - enuff of this shite, boys!... SACK THE PLACE!"

Wouldn't blame em a lot, neither.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Monday, September 22, 2008 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium.

You need to check your numbers REALLY badly. Humans and micro-organisms are entirely different species, birds and Dinosaurs aren't the same species. Just because they may have evolved from Dinosaurs, doesn't mean they're the same species. If your proposal had any weight there could be no extinction of species. There is.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
When T-Rex went extinct, Dinosaurs did'nt become extinct. If Sparrows become the last surviving birds on Earth,Dinosaurs won't be extinct. When the last bird on Earth dies, Dinosaurs become extinct.

*Sigh*

Even if Birds evolved from Dinosaurs, Birds AREN'T dinosaurs, and there are no members of the Dinosaurs species left alive. They're extinct.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SWISH

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:03 AM

So, one could certainly make up their own definitions for words like "species", but if one was interested in using them in discourse with others, it's just going to work better if one learns the generally accepted definition of the word.

Species: (Biology) the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

If you don't agree, take it up with dictionary.com. Otherwise, note that a T Rex and a sparrow could never have little lizard-bird-babies of their very own, nor could a human and a parameceum make little humaceum blobs. They are, by definition, not the same species.

CITIZEN

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
So, one could certainly make up their own definitions for words like "species", but if one was interested in using them in discourse with others, it's just going to work better if one learns the generally accepted definition of the word.

Species: (Biology) the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

If you don't agree, take it up with dictionary.com. Otherwise, note that a T Rex and a sparrow could never have little lizard-bird-babies of their very own, nor could a human and a parameceum make little humaceum blobs. They are, by definition, not the same species.

Pretty much what I said earlier:

Quote:

Beyond that the definition for a species is the ability to breed and produce viable fertile offspring.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Monday, September 22, 2008 5:24 PM

Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.

Just wondering.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

CITIZEN

Monday, September 22, 2008 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.

Just wondering.

Tortoises are of the class Reptilia, where as Dinosaurs are of the class Sauropsida. Crocodiles are pretty similar to Dinosaurs, and they're a member of Sauropsida, though their order Crocodilia isn't considered Dinosaur.

Dinosaurs did have a fairly major characteristic though, which was a straight legged posture more like how mammals hold their weight. Crocodiles are like modern day reptiles, where the legs sprawl out either side of the body.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SWISH

Monday, September 22, 2008 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Pretty much what I said earlier

Yeah, sorry. It just didn't seem to take, so I thought a repeat might help.

CITIZEN

Monday, September 22, 2008 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Yeah, sorry. It just didn't seem to take, so I thought a repeat might help.

No apology required, I just thought I'd repeat myself for prosperity

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
So, one could certainly make up their own definitions for words like "species", but if one was interested in using them in discourse with others, it's just going to work better if one learns the generally accepted definition of the word.

Species: (Biology) the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

If you don't agree, take it up with dictionary.com. Otherwise, note that a T Rex and a sparrow could never have little lizard-bird-babies of their very own, nor could a human and a parameceum make little humaceum blobs. They are, by definition, not the same species.

The classifications are defined somewhat by who is making the list of species. Many don't include Birds as Dinosaurs after Arceopteryx because there are so many birds extinct and still alive that the few(700-800) dinosaur genus known would be just a minute portion of the list. One of the problems we are haveing here is that Dinosaurs are not known by their species, but their genus, Tyrannosaur is the genus, Rex is the species. If all dinosaurs were the same species then they could interbreed. Because almost nothing is known about their genetics, it's almost impossible to determine what species a particular dinosaur belonged to, other than by common appearance. If you want to cut off your list of Dinosaurs so feathered genus after Arceopteryx are not included, then yes all genus of Dinosaurs are extinct. The only problem I see with this is that Dinosaurs did not become extinct when Archeopterex emerged, so it's just an arbitrary point in the evolution of Dinosaurs. By doing so you are assuming all other genus of Dinosaurs did become extinct. If we conclusively knew that all modern bird were descended from genus Archyopteryx then I would have no problem saying all Dinosaurs are extinct and calling a Sparrow, Archyopteryx-Sparrow. The problem I see with that is, a few year form now we might discover that Archyopteryx was just another dead end Dinosaur genus and that modern birds are actually descended from a Dinosaur genus that emerged a million years after Arceopteryx.

CITIZEN

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The classifications are defined somewhat by who is making the list of species. Many don't include Birds as Dinosaurs after Arceopteryx because there are so many birds extinct and still alive that the few(700-800) dinosaur genus known would be just a minute portion of the list. One of the problems we are haveing here is that Dinosaurs are not known by their species, but their genus, Tyrannosaur is the genus, Rex is the species. If all dinosaurs were the same species then they could interbreed. Because almost nothing is known about their genetics, it's almost impossible to determine what species a particular dinosaur belonged to, other than by common appearance. If you want to cut off your list of Dinosaurs so feathered genus after Arceopteryx are not included, then yes all genus of Dinosaurs are extinct. The only problem I see with this is that Dinosaurs did not become extinct when Archeopterex emerged, so it's just an arbitrary point in the evolution of Dinosaurs. By doing so you are assuming all other genus of Dinosaurs did become extinct. If we conclusively knew that all modern bird were descended from genus Archyopteryx then I would have no problem saying all Dinosaurs are extinct and calling a Sparrow Archyopteryx Sparrow. The problem I see with that is, a few year form now we might discover that Archyopteryx was just another dead end Dinosaur genus and that modern birds are actually descended from a Dinosaur genus that emerged a million years after Arceopteryx.

It doesn't make a difference. Birds are not part of the Dinosaur group of species, regardless of what species they may have evolved from. It's not just an arbitrary distinction, Birds have a number of physical differences and adaptations to Dinosaur species that warrants them being placed in a separate category. There are still bird species in the world, but that doesn't mean the Dodo isn't extinct.

There are no species that fit into the Dinosaur classification left alive in the world, thus they are extinct.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Yes biologically I am, since I contain 99.999% of the genetic material of a Paramecium.
You need to check your numbers REALLY badly. Humans and micro-organisms are entirely different species, birds and Dinosaurs aren't the same species. Just because they may have evolved from Dinosaurs, doesn't mean they're the same species. If your proposal had any weight there could be no extinction of species. There is.

I didn't say humans and Paramecium have 99.99% identical genetics. Obviously a Paramecium has only a fraction of the genetic material of a human. All species on earth contain the genetic code of organisms that precede them in the evolutionary tree. Just because I contain the genetic code of a Paramecium doesn't make me a Paramecium.

CITIZEN

Monday, September 22, 2008 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I didn't say humans and Paramecium have 99.99% identical genetics. Obviously a Paramecium has only a fraction of the genetic material of a human. All species on earth contain the genetic code of organisms that precede them in the evolutionary tree. Just because I contain the genetic code of a Paramecium doesn't make me a Paramecium.

It's a misconception that more complex animals have a greater amount of, or more complex DNA. Actually evidence suggests that specialisation has reduced the number of base pairs in complex life forms. So no, you don't contain all the genetic material of all your evolutionary ancestors.

Besides, wasn't the "being evolved from an older species doesn't make you that older species" actually my point?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Monday, September 22, 2008 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Small technical quibble here, and a question, but why is it that we don't consider alligators, crocodiles, and gavials to be dinosaurs? Or turtles and tortoises, for that matter? We're told they haven't evolved for 65-75 million years, which should put them squarely in the age of the dinosaurs... And I could see a salt-water croc being able to produce offspring with a croc from 75 million years ago.

Just wondering.

Mike

That is an interesting thought. We just don't know whether or not the earliest feathered dinosaur could breed with a modern bird. Seems highly unlikely, buy not impossible. If they could, Birds are definitely Dinosaurs.

CITIZEN

Monday, September 22, 2008 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
That is an interesting thought. We just don't know whether or not the earliest feathered dinosaur could breed with a modern bird. Seems highly unlikely, buy not impossible. If they could, Birds are definitely Dinosaurs.

By that reasoning we don't know for sure modern day people couldn't breed with dinosaurs, having no living Dinosaurs to test the theory with. But again, Birds are very different to dinosaur species, there's basically no chance they could interbreed, and even then it's not actually proof that the species are the same. Horses and Donkeys are obviously not the same Species, but can produce infertile offspring.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Horses and Donkeys are obviously not the same Species, but can produce infertile offspring.

"related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

Now you are the one arguing with Swish's dictionary definition of species. Have you added the requirement that the offspring be fertile? My dictionary only requires "a group of animals or plants which bear a close resemblance to each other in the more essential features of their organisation, and produce similar progeny".

CITIZEN

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
"related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

Now you are the one arguing with Swish's dictionary definition of species. Have you added the requirement that the offspring be fertile? My dictionary only requires "a group of animals or plants which bear a close resemblance to each other in the more essential features of their organisation, and produce similar progeny".

I haven't added anything. I'm going by the definition made by biologists, last time I checked dictionaries weren't considered biological texts. No interbreeding is fine for a rule of thumb, and I'll say for sure that no dinosaur species could breed with modern birds, because the genetic morphology is far to remote, but it's not all encompassing. Horses and Donkeys are different species, even the dictionary won't tell you different.

The fact is that species definitions become blurred with very closely related species, such as horses, donkeys and so on, Birds are not closely related to Dinosaurs. They're quite far removed morphologically and genetically, so while closely related species may "blur" to some extent, Birds are well out of "blurring range" with Dinosaurs.

Quote:
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology.
...
Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SWISH

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:07 AM

And I'll add that that was not my definition, it was from dictionary.com, and can be found in any high school, or probably junior high or even elementary biology textbook. The issue of different but similar species, such as horses and donkeys, being able to procreate would also be addressed in these texts.

Kirk - really, it doesn't help the discussion if you have no respect for common definitions, or don't take the time to learn them. You probably have a very good point, but if you continually misuse basic terms like "species", it's hard to understand you!

What was this discussion about anyway? Psychopathic birds doing it with dinosaurs?

*confused*

RUE

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:52 PM

Re Greenlanders going extinct

"I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. ."

Yes, Greenlanders did actually all go extinct. The trading records of the day indicated no trading ships went to Greenland in a span of 100 years (one left Iceland for Greenland early in that timeframe but never returned. Voyaging was a dangerous occupation.) Furthermore, the Greenlanders had cleared all the available trees for pasture for their beloved cows, so they couldn't build ships. Without visiting ships and unable to make their own they were unable to go elsewhere. Finally, the archeological evidence is of a once large and thriving community with major elements long fallen into disrepair and disuse, indications of economic and population contraction. And the few skeletons and waste left behind indicated a half-dozen people living with their few remaining precious cattle, eating them, and eating each other. While ships occasionally sheltered near Greenland during the interim, knowledge of the colony itself was lost to time. The next time anyone visited the colony was hundreds of years later and, and obviously, no one was home.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The fact is that species definitions become blurred with very closely related species, such as horses, donkeys and so on, Birds are not closely related to Dinosaurs. They're quite far removed morphologically and genetically, so while closely related species may "blur" to some extent, Birds are well out of "blurring range" with Dinosaurs.

In my original post that is all I was trying to imply about Neanderthal. The "general consensus" among scientists is that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal are separate species. This is not a scientific fact. They are classified that way because the current consensus is that most of the evidence in the fossil record suggests that this may be the case. Many scientists believe that modern humans might be the result of Neanderthal, Homo Sapien hybridization. If this is the case then the name given to our species is just a result of the fact that the consensus is that our skeletons more closely resemble Homo Sapien. It's possible that future evidence will determine that the Neanderthal contribution to human genetics is much greater than currently thought. If that is the case it would be just as reasonable to call modern man Neanderthal as Homo Sapien. By any of the definitions of species you accept, Neanderthal and Homo Sapien would be considered the same due to the "blurring" between closely related species. They almost certainly interbred in the wild and their offspring were almost certainly fertile. The difference in their skeletal structure is significant, but so is the deference in skeletal structure among different populations of Homo Sapiens.

RUE

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:20 PM

"They almost certainly interbred in the wild and their offspring were almost certainly fertile."

A few skeletons of what appear to be Neandertal human crosses have been uncovered. However, the state of their fertility is in doubt, given the inability to find Neandertal traces in human DNA. It's possible humans simply swamped Neandertal out of existence - by numbers encouraging human Neandertal crosses which couldn't propagate, thus condemning Neandertal genes to extinction.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:

What was this discussion about anyway? Psychopathic birds doing it with dinosaurs?

*confused*

I'm as confused as you are about the original subject of this thread. That's why I stayed away until something Rue said reminded me of the Neanderthal special that was on NGCHD Sunday night. I thought it would be of interest to the egg heads in this thread. Shouldn't have allowed Citizen to bait me into a off subject argument.

Thanks for policing the threads anyway. What was you contribution, a few vague insults and a dictionary definition?

KIRKULES

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Re Greenlanders going extinct

"I think I understand what you're saying. It's like when all the Russians moved out of the Chernobyl site after the accident, that makes Russians extinct. ."

Yes, Greenlanders did actually all go extinct. The trading records of the day indicated no trading ships went to Greenland in a span of 100 years (one left Iceland for Greenland early in that timeframe but never returned. Voyaging was a dangerous occupation.) Furthermore, the Greenlanders had cleared all the available trees for pasture for their beloved cows, so they couldn't build ships. Without visiting ships and unable to make their own they were unable to go elsewhere. Finally, the archeological evidence is of a once large and thriving community with major elements long fallen into disrepair and disuse, indications of economic and population contraction. And the few skeletons and waste left behind indicated a half-dozen people living with their few remaining precious cattle, eating them, and eating each other. While ships occasionally sheltered near Greenland during the interim, knowledge of the colony itself was lost to time. The next time anyone visited the colony was hundreds of years later and, and obviously, no one was home.

My brain tells me you're right Rue, but my Viking blood and genetic memory forces me to deny it.

RUE

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:35 PM

Greenland was orginally a scam anyway.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SWISH

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Thanks for policing the threads anyway. What was you contribution, a few vague insults and a dictionary definition?

Now, son, I'm only gonna say this once. When I start policing threads, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed...

CITIZEN

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
In my original post that is all I was trying to imply about Neanderthal. The "general consensus" among scientists is that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal are separate species. This is not a scientific fact.

Erm, yes it is. They are, or rather were, separate species. You'll be telling me Homosapians and Chimpanzees are the same species next.

Quote:
They are classified that way because the current consensus is that most of the evidence in the fossil record suggests that this may be the case.

They had different Skeletons, different bodies, different sized brains, different eating habits. They were a different species, there's no new evidence that can turn up that can change that. Any more than there'll be any new evidence to show Humans are the same species as armadillos.

Quote:

Many scientists believe that modern humans might be the result of Neanderthal, Home Sapien hybridization. If this is the case then the name given to our species is just a result of the fact that the consensus is that our skeletons more closely resemble Homo Sapien.

No, not really. There's no evidence of Neanderthal contribution to the Human genome.

Quote:
It's possible that future evidence will determine that the Neanderthal contribution to human genetics is much greater than currently thought.

It's possible that my body could quantum tunnel into next week, but that doesn't make it likely. Neanderthals were a different species, they have completely different bone structures. They're no closer to modern man than Donkeys are to Horses, and those two are also separate species.

Quote:
If that is the case it would be just as reasonable to call modern man Neanderthal as Homo Sapien. By any of the definitions of species you accept, Neanderthal and Homo Sapien would be considered the same due to the "blurring" between closely related species.

No, it wouldn't. Neanderthal man and modern humans aren't that closely related for a start.

Quote:
They almost certainly interbred in the wild and their offspring were almost certainly fertile.

They almost certainly did not. There's been a couple of finds that might suggest Neanderthal/Human interbreeding, but are far more likely to suggest other things entirely.

Quote:
The difference in their skeletal structure is significant, but so is the deference in skeletal structure among different populations of Homo Sapiens.

What? Seriously, this is just getting silly. The differences in skeletal structure between diverse racial groups of humans are negligible, the difference between any modern man and Neanderthal is huge. The differences between populations of modern man, and the differences between Neanderthals and modern man are completely incomparable. There is no comparison. It's like comparing a truck to another truck and saying a scooter could also be a truck because it has wheels. It doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Shouldn't have allowed Citizen to bait me into a off subject argument.

No, I shouldn't have let you bait me into an 'off subject argument'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:32 PM

Anyway, as I mentioned in another thread, I read 'Blink', and it had in it something I had run across before but completely forgot about, which is the concept of priming. What that is the ability to influence people by using words with non-conscious associations. So, for example if you give a speech you might want to use words like clean, home, breeze, family - not even necessarily together. And you want to avoid words like welfare (even in the phrase 'our country's welfare' - b/c welfare has too many negative non-conscious associations), work (too hard), or think (too hard and suspicious).

For example you might say: The economy is stumbling. The path we are on is dangerous. We need a clean start. We need to take a fresh look at our policies and goals. They must clearly reflect our primary aim, which is to represent the citizens of this country. We need to remember that we're not just talking about housing, we're talking about homes --- and families. The winds of change haven’t started yet - what we are feeling is just a breeze.

That's a clumsy example, but it's been done very well over the years. And it doesn't have to make sense logically - but by evoking the right non-conscious associations you can gain support.

What does this have to do with unexamined paradigms ? Unexamined paradigms ARE our non-conscious associations. Even when illogical, contradictory or just plain silly they are the underpinnings of our 'thoughts' and actions.

But I'll have to save the rest for later.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:20 AM

Dammit, quit spillin my beans, Rue!

-F

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, November 29, 2024 5:21 PM

and another day another mass shooting in Shit-cago

in Britbongistan they protect the idenity of killers, the Bulger case set off a news talking head, chattering classes debate about how to handle young offenders when they are sentenced or released

bad kids?

Thompson and Venables were seen shoplifting various items, including sweets, batteries, a troll doll, and a can of blue Humbrol modelling paint.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090121191737/http://www.trutv.com/librar
y/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/1.html

In January 2019, the short film Detainment was nominated for Best Live Action Short Film at the 91st Academy Awards ("The Oscars"). The film is based on transcripts of the police interviews with Thompson and Venables after their arrests.

Britbong, they will often send police to arrest members of the public who complain about Thompson and Venables moving into t heir neighborhood

Justice David Bean, ruled that Venables' new identity could not be revealed, but the media were allowed to report that he had been living in Cheshire at the time of his arrest. The High Court also heard that Venables had been arrested on suspicion of affray in September 2008, following a drunken street fight with another man. Late that year, he was cautioned for possession of cocaine. In November 2010, a review of the National Probation Service handling of the case by David Omand found that probation officers could not have prevented Venables from downloading child sexual abuse material. Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said that only 24 hour surveillance would have stopped Venables
https://web.archive.org/web/20121105135827/http://www.scribd.com/doc/4
3766244/Venables-Omand-Review

In June 2019, it was reported that Brithonistani officials had considered resettling Venables in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, due to the high costs behind protecting his anonymity. Britbongistan authorities had reportedly spent £65,000 in legal fees to keep Venables' identity a secret.

In January 2020, a 53-year-old woman from Ammanford in South Wales received a prison sentence of eight months, suspended for 15 months: in November 2017, she had published an alleged photograph of Venables on Facebook, with the advice "share this as much as possible". Lord Justice Nigel Davis said that the offence was "close to the line" for an immediate prison sentence, but suspended the sentence after observing an early admission of guilt and remorse by the woman
https://web.archive.org/web/20200125141004/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
uk-wales-51233590

‘Psychopath’ art benefactor killed beloved NYC artist — and then shot himself as longtime partner grasps for answers
https://www.yahoo.com/news/psychopath-art-benefactor-killed-beloved-21
3056188.html

Family of teen slain by 'psychopath' who bedded prison therapists share chilling warning
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13938337/eric-kane-murder-jac
ob-wideman-arizona-release.html

Teen arrested in mother's stabbing death, 19 months after fatally shooting father
https://abcnews.go.com/US/teen-arrested-mother-stabbing-year-after-fat
ally-shooting-father/story?id=113640100
The teen called 911 and said his mother "fell on a knife"

Grady Judd says teen accused of murdering his mother also killed his father: 'Violent predator'
https://www.fox13news.com/news/grady-judd-says-teen-accused-murdering-
his-mother-also-killed-his-father-violent-predator

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, September 29, 2025 7:10 PM

Mayor Eric Adams is dropping out of New York City’s mayoral race amid escalating pressure to clear the crowded field in a last-ditch attempt to stop socialist Zohran Mamdani’s election to City Hall.

The bombshell move comes after weeks of back-and-forth over whether Adams would bow out of the race, in which he is polling fourth, far behind frontrunner Mamdani, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and also, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa.

...
Adams did not endorse any of the other candidates, and even took subtle swipes at Mamdani and Cuomo — issuing a warning about local government being used to launder radical ideals and urging voters not to elect a mayor who’s flip-flopped on the issues.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/28/us-news/eric-adams-drops-out-of-nyc-mayo
ral-race-amid-increasing-pressure-i-know-i-cannot-continue-my-campaign/

Trump goes on a tear over ‘psychopathic nut job’ Jerry Nadler after veteran Democrat announces retirement
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-goes-tear-over-psychopathic-122650564.
html

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, September 29, 2025 7:26 PM

MORE THAN AN ENTIRE FUCKING PAGE OF NECROPOSTS THIS MORNING JAYNEZ!!!!

--------------------------------------------------

For all that I've blessed, and all that I've wronged. In dreams until my death, I will wander on.