Keith, I am not arguing, because it is more complex and do not want to argue it. I do think that this comment, even as it is referred to a third person, should not have been done. To leave such a comment, without mention how simple and utterly stupid it is, is wrong. Maybe I should have said this straight, instead of my too complex post.
I cannot understand that a comment that is published on list, becomes an off list comment, because you say so. Off list is off list and we would never seen it, if we saw it, it is on list and not protected by an off list remark. My postings are also off list comments to an off list posting, if this is the norm. LOL Hakan At 08:43 09/06/2006, you wrote: > >Keith, > > > >I have to differ with that women find the ruthlessness attractive > >as such. It is natural and built in, that women are attracted to > >strong men or what is assumed to be strong men. This because > >she in the past needed protection in her role as child bearer, so > >the instinct as female part of the specie would seek that protection. > >The modern society has changed the roles somewhat and the > >definition of strength, but the instincts are still there. Ruthless > >persons are often judged to be strong and therefore attractive. > > > >Hakan > >Hakan, you're just arguing about a point in Jai's post: > > >Kurt Vonnegut asserts > > >that it is a weakness in the species that women find this ruthlessness > >attractive, but that is off topic. > >It is indeed off-topic, and it's a lot more complex than that anyway. > >Why don't you read what Greenspan and Shanker have to say? > >Best > >Keith > > > > >At 06:28 09/06/2006, you wrote: > > >Jai Haissman very kindly sent me this paper. It follows on from a > > >previous discussion where Jai cited this research but the paper > > >wasn't available. Now it's online: > > > > > >http://icdl.com/toward_a_psychology_of_interdepe.htm > > > > > >The Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders > > > > > >Toward a Psychology of Interdependency: > > >A Framework for Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation > > > > > >Stanley I. Greenspan, M.D. and Stuart G. Shanker, D.Phil. > > > > > >Over the last decade, shared dangers, as well as shared > > >communications and economies -- for the first time any one group can, > > >through nuclear, biological, or ecological events, destroy life for > > >all other groups -- have brought individuals from all parts of the > > >world together into a closer interdependency than at any time before > > >in human history. This growing interdependency can result in greater > > >social fragmentation, more extreme types of polarized beliefs, and > > >greater hostility; or it can serve as a catalyst for humans to > > >develop new adaptive levels of personal and social organization. The > > >psychology of interdependency will characterize the elements of these > > >personal and social organizations to help us understand and prepare > > >for a rapidly advancing interdependent future. > > > > > >(18,200 words) > > > > > >----- > > > > > >Very interesting read, IMO. > > > > > >Here's Jai's previous message: > > > > > >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30705.html > > > > > >[biofuel] Re: Nothing ... it's people Was: What's wrong with corporations? > > > > > >Jai Haissman CR, SEP > > >27 Dec 2003 15:34:40 -0000 > > > > > >Greetings, > > > > > >I have been surfing this list for some time and felt moved to weigh in > > >here. I hope this is not too off topic, but I had some interest in the > > >following statements. Mostly because it speaks to why should we be > > >interested in making an environmental fuel at all, if there are no > > >consequences. Consider the following statement: > > > > > > >> I know if there were no consequences to my actions, I would > > > >> certainly act differently. We have a christmas party at work every > > > >> year. I COULD get drunk, punch out my boss and take a leak in the > > > >> punch bowl. Realistically, there would be no legal consequences (my > > > >> boss is not the kind of guy to call the cops for something stupid > > > >> like that). But I didn't do it. Why not? Because there would have > > > >> been consequences. My coworkers would not have liked me anymore, > > > >> life at work would have been much more difficult. It would have > > > >> been socially unacceptable. > > > > > >The premise here is that without consequences, we are basically > > >opportunists, and will seek our advantage without a care. This thinking > > >is not correct, but it is popular and was called "Lexus > > >Talionus" - law of the claw - by the political philosopher Hobbes... or > > >Locke, I can't remember which. The basic assertion is that we exist in > > >a state of nature where it is eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, and > > >that the only way to contain this brutality is through the social > > >contract of laws that insure a commodious life. This outdated and > > >psychologically uninformed political philosophy is the basis for > > >present day policymaking that intends to repress and contain what > > >would otherwise be a dangerous population of potential miscreants. Laws > > >from this orientation seek to make consequences as a deterrent against > > >the dangerous nature that is within us. > > > > > >I agree with Kieth's assertions that people do many good and > > >cooperative things all the time, and the suggestion that this is the > > >norm. People want to help each other, which makes a lot of sense for > > >obvious reasons. Research confirms what some of us don't already know: > > >that people are naturally cooperative. How then do we account for those > > >who profit at the expense of the commonweal?Well, the dictionary > > >defines sociopathic personality n : a personality disorder > > >characterized by amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts > > >without guilt feelings. > > > > > >Consider recent corporate and US policy. Bottom line corporate thinking > > >that shows no regard for social or environmental impact meets this > > >criteria for a personality disorder. I think the unfortunate fact is > > >that corporations promote this behavior set by protecting individuals > > >from being held accountable for their actions. The US has even come to > > >valorize sociopathy: if a CEO is morally unwilling to "do what it > > >takes" the are replaced by one who will: observe the radical corporate > > >machinations of Enron price fixing. This appears to be true of > > >politicians as well: witness Bush Senior's strong efforts to overcome > > >his "wimp factor". The hero worship of the Gropenator in some circles > > >is classic: Schwarzennager typifies this illness. Kurt Vonnegut asserts > > >that it is a weakness in the species that women find this ruthlessness > > >attractive, but that is off topic. > > > > > >The best of our knowledge shows that if people are raised with care and > > >socialized well, they naturally cooperate and have a care. If people > > >are raised badly, traumatized, or dispossessed, they turn to > > >maladaptive behaviors, more and more commonplace and easily observed. > > >This situation does require containment... but its so much easier, > > >cheaper, and safer to just have a care to how people are treated to > > >begin with!! > > > > > >Research in Attachment Theory (Bowlby / Ainsworth / Main) very clearly > > >shows that people are primarily motivated by the desire to connect to > > >other people: we are a social species. That is adaptive for survival. > > >Stanley I. Greenspan, M.D. and Stuart G. Shanker, D.Phil. wrote a deep > > >analysis of these themes in "Toward a Psychology of Interdependency: A > > >Framework for Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation" > > > > > >It looks at why our current political decision making is misinformed by > > >the premise that, left unchecked, we will all make a mess of things and > > >therefore must be carefully monitored and controlled. It also offers a > > >recognition of what has worked for millenia that is being undone by > > >economic and political policy, and specifically points to how by > > >promoting wellbeing worldwide, terrorism and sociopathy is nipped in > > >the bud: cheaply and without the military. > > > > > >Happy, well adjusted people act naturally with others in mind. > > > > > >Thanks for an interesting discussion. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
