Eva Durant wrote:
> The bully tend to be the biggest puppy, the one with
> the most expendable energy. Even in dogs,
> aggressivity is "taught" by the human
> who replaced the role of the alpha.
Above is another example of internal inconsistency. The bully pup is
aggressive independently of human interaction; and aggressiveness,
dominance, & hierarchy exist apart from domestication.
> Even bull-terriers in a strong-controlled
> but peaceful environment tend to grow up
> docile.
I've no data, but my personal experience agrees - within a range, of
course.
> You say we should not attempt democracy because
> no animals live that way?
Strawman.
I never said or implied that. I argue, like Ed does, that hierarchies and
ranges of human (& other) behavior have always existed and will most likely
continue to do so despite any structural changes invented & applied. It
makes democracy somewhat irregular at best. But I'm not advocating
dictatorship, just realistic expectations if humans plan to peacefully
narrow the gap between rich & poor.
> And for the same
> reason we should accept whatever an exploitative
> and visibly insane social structure throws at us?
Your creation of strawmen continues to amaze me.
> Than we shouldn't do poetry, science, etc, etc,
> or even debate on the internet,
> must be bad for us, it is against our animal nature,
> I haven't seen any mammals doing it...
You really need a course in elementary logic. Try to diagram the causative
links you are claiming. What does any of the above have to do with
accepting that we ain't all clones, and that our social institutions can't
make us as equal as you would like.
> What a said apology for the support of
> the capitalist system!
You really don't get it. People make their beds & sleep in them. I'm
supporting not a fixed system, but shrinkage - of population, & of economic
throughput/impact. I'd like zero interest rates, & NO MONEY SUPPLY GROWTH.
All steady state once at sustainable rates/methods of production,
distribution, and consumption. Now that sounds quite Utopian, but it
doesn't mean that everyone's share would be identical; it means the
wholesystem might endure for some longer period than with growthmania.
> You are confusing physical/biologival and behavoral/social
> traits.
The traits of the individuals *affect* the behavioral/social systems they
create. I was indicating only the nature/nurture mix.
> So we should accept all the unscientific stereotyping
> of historical literature as evidence?
Another perverse induction. I indicated that historical & literary lore was
based on group memories and passed on myths...cultural heritages. These
indicate *differences* based both on nature & nurture.
> E.g. That wellknown fact of thousands years
> of history that women cannot think rationally?
Strawwoman :-)
> Etc, Etc.? Are you serious??
You are so far out on a fantasy limb that I fear you're about to crash;
maybe then you'd rejoin planet earth.
> People in the absence of scientific methods
> end cientific data, made some patterns that had no
> real base, only a self-fulfilling expectations
> of set behavoral forms.
Now you sound like Jay! Remember, only a tiny % of humans understand
scientific theory. Science tries to understand what people do, it doesn't
make them do what they do. People learn by experience, and the
'self-fulfilling' rarely evolves as expected. Unintended consequences and
intervening unexpected variables change things ad infinitum.
> Must be, because I am a 100% east-European jew
> ethnically and I haven't
> done any of these things. Besides being tall.
My *NAME* related to height. My ethnic background related to studious bent;
your 2 univ degrees are consistent with that. My anecdotal story was merely
an example of the differences between humans & cultures.
> > OK. You acknowledge a "mixture" of nurture/nature. So why throw out the
> > "nature" by speculating that nurture can overrule it?
> Everyone has a hardwired possibility to become
> a psychopath in given circumstances. Nurture can
> overrule it except for a very few cases of
> physiological mental illness.
You use a statistical "tail" to try to prove the norm. Sure brainwashing
can break people or turn them into zombies. Under normal circumstances
people function more 'normally' - nature/nurture mix.
> Please tell me what points you are making with
> these excerpts, I missed them.
>
> Eva
If you don't get the point of this**, I give up:
> > recognition of the fact that all living organisms are self-steering within
> > certain limits, and that their **behaviour therefore can be steered from the
> > outside only to a very moderate extent.**
Steve
