Posted by
glen ep ropella on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/vol-98-issue-24-psychology-discussion-tp6716848p6718141.html
I don't see how this is simpler (or different). Whatever biological
mechanism is being selected, Peggy's point still stands: religion is
just one of the many groups that might be operational.
The trick lies in the persistence (pervasiveness?) of the structure
created. Since the individual _probably_ operates at a higher frequency
than the group, _any_ mechanism evolved for at the fine grain
(individual) that stabilizes things for the benefit of the group will
(almost by tautology) limit the degrees of freedom for the individual.
Even if the individual "benefits" in some sense from the constraints,
it's still subjugation.
But my point (and perhaps Peggy's) was that religion might be special
compared to other organizations, in that we are at our leisure to choose
our belief system despite the subjugation of our actual behavior.
That's because belief is (largely) unrelated to action.
I suppose it might also apply to, say, getting a job in 2011 America.
Those with jobs are free to believe they have (acquired and maintain)
their job for any reason: perhaps they're competent, lucky, wear the
right clothes, have the right accent, went to the right school ...
_whatever_ arbitrary belief happens to obtain. But that doesn't change
the speculation that evolution may be selecting for appropriate
individual behaviors (like waking up early or clipping one's
fingernails) that are commensurate with having a job. This may be true
for all types of group, but I suspect religion is at one end of the
spectrum.
The extent of our ability to decouple what we believe from what
evolution is actually selecting will reconcile the two concepts of
"subjugation". Hence, group selection for "having a job" may well be
more subjugating than selection for "burning incense and meditating".
Russ Abbott wrote circa 11-08-23 12:18 PM:
> 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.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 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