Re: vol 98 issue 24 psychology discussion

Posted by Nick Thompson on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/vol-98-issue-24-psychology-discussion-tp6716848p6717438.html

Exactly.  Thanks, Russ.  Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] vol 98 issue 24 psychology discussion

 

I think Nick's point was simpler -- or at least this is how I see it.  

 

When someone who is a member of a group chooses a behavior that helps the group survive rather than a behavior that brings that person an immediate benefit that person is subjugated in Nick's sense. (At least that's how I understand what Nick is saying in referring to David Sloan Wilson.)

 

For example, group members will often favor other group members over outsiders even if the outsider is the better choice for the individual to make on some objective basis.  This is often an evolved preference. 

 

Groups that are successful in having their members behave in this way have a better chance to survive as a group.  In the long run, that may also give the individual members a greater chance to survive.  So subjugation in this sense is not necessarily a bad deal for the individual.

 

-- Russ

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:17 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

As usual, the Devil is in the details.  Any collective behavior is
subjugating, at least in some sense.  My favorite example of this is the
speculation that pure anarchy would be indistinguishable from pure
socialism.

But, to me, there's a stark difference between a belief in supernatural
beings and religious behavior.  Growing up Catholic, it was difficult to
avoid noticing that most practitioners had no serious idea what they
actually believed.  When pressed, they'd say they believed in some
amorphous thing they couldn't define. And they were largely
uncomfortable thinking about it and very uncomfortable talking about it.
 I think there are similar examples everywhere.  We do things for
strange, ineffable reasons, then when/if asked to explain why we do
those things, we have to scramble for a reason.  (<troll> Well, except
fans of philosohpy, of course, who need not scramble because they think
about those things on a regular basis. </troll>)

When asked why I like to burn incense and meditate, I can answer with
"'Cause I like it."  or "'Cause I'm Catholic."

If pressed, I'd argue that evolution selects for (or against) "burning
incense and meditating", not "believing in a transubstantiating,
3-part-but-one-part supernatural being who listens to my internal
dialog." ;-)  Each of us replaces that latter part with whatever
arbitrary fantasy causes the least conflict with those around us.  But
the former part is more operational, effective.

To be more clear, I disbelieve that evolution selects for belief at all,
because belief is epiphenomenal.  What matters is action.  I believe
that evolution selects only for behavior and whatever fantasies
(stochastically) obtain are those that allow the more optimal behavior.


peggy miller wrote circa 11-08-23 09:22 AM:

> Responding to Nicholas Thompson who referred to David Sloan Wilson's

> view that human predilection to religion is an adaptation that fosters
> subjugation of the individual I would like to say this:
> *Organized* religions do tend to foster subjugation, just as most
> organized institutions do. Universities foster subjugation with their
> students and even their faculty, governments with their citizens, large
> corporations with their employees and even their customers. Trying to
> get a large number of people to do anything with any semblance of order
> requires some measure of that, and different cultures seem to prefer
> different levels of subjugation, and so I guess of order. But *religious
> beliefs  *are not inherently subjugating.
> One can believe in God, Tao, Christ, etc, and try to subscribe to a
> personal path of --- say kindness, compassion, giving -- without
> choosing to even be in an organized religious.
> Now, if you are arguing that personally trying to follow a path of
> kindness and compassion subjugates an individual by the very nature of
> the gesture of kindness or compassion, well -- I disagree. One's path if
> one's choice.
> Furthermore, if in walking one's own religious path, one stumbles on
> other like minded individuals who occasionally get together to discuss
> their  common interests, I do not find that subjugating either.
> I do tend to see subjugation enter, willingly or not, when that group
> decides on rules that they then want others to follow and go out trying
> to talk people into their rules and beliefs. If they simply go out to
> share some level of personal positive experience related to their path,
> that is not subjugating I don't believe.
>           Sort of like believing in a more environmental path. It is one
> thing to try to tell others that it might be helpful to us all and to
> the longevity of the planet as we sort of know it,  if we got off the
> burning of fossil fuels. Subjugation enters when a government insists on
> one course (and sometimes I must admit that I see this as a necessary
> thing because people are slow to act) -- like to insist (I wish) that
> all new coal fired plants be closed and replaced with wind, solar,
> wind-to-hydrogen, and/or geothermal plants, or that all new vehicles in
> 2020 will operate on either hydrogen, solar, or electricity from renewables.
> Enough expounding.
> Peggy
>
>

>  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> hat

> geschrieben:
>
> Peggy, Kim, n all,
>
>
>
> One of the features of */evolutionary/* psychology that I like is that
> it is less likely to see non-normative variations in psychological
> organization as diseases.  Rather, it tends to see them as potential
> adaptations to different selection pressures.  David Sloan Wilson in
> */his Darwin’s Cathedral/* holds the view that the human predilection
> to religion is an adaptation that fosters subjugation of individual
> interests to those of the group.  In short, it works just because it is
> irrational (given that “reason” is deployed to determine an individual’s
> best course of action for himself and his own genealogy).

--
glen e. p. ropella, <a href="tel:[phone]">971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org