From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 




[email protected] wrote:
> 
> In article <[email protected]>,
>   [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Although I already responded to this, I should also add that status, or
> > at least pecking order, can all be maintained using the ancient emotion
> > of fear, rather than relying on a far more lethal means which actually
> > ends up incapacitating those who become sufficiently overwhelmed with
> > a sense of worthlessness.
> 
> I don't see why 'a sense of worthlessness' cannot simply be described as
> 'fear of what worthlessness means to the organism' (ie, fear of no
> status, fear of no food, fear of not reproducing etc). 

There is no knock out punch I can deliver here, particularly with someone
who comes across as reasonable as yourself.   (trying to ingratiate myself
a little here, to more effectively persuade as the actual 
ulterior motive, no doubt  :)  ).  Simplistically, we have two basic "theories",

  1. Feelings of worthlessness are AN ADAPTATION nature has incorporated
     and SELECTED FOR because it compells organisms to seek high status
     and therefore to get the best of the food, mating partners, etc.
     (Mick's theory). 

  2. Feelings of worthlessness are AN ADVERSITY nature is doing her 
     best to contend with, which have been TOLERATED as a necessary 
     premium for having a rational species to do her bidding.
     (Phil's theory).

On your side of the argument, we might point to rock stars, who as a result of
their pursuit of self-significance end up getting to mate with lots of 
attractive females.  On my side of the argument, we have the brokers who
jump out of windows when the market crashes, suggesting that what in your
view is a mere means to an end (status to amplify reproductive success) 
is actually the most valued end, even more important than survival itself.

Of course, there is always:

   3. Feelings of worthlessness are an admixture of pluses and minuses
      in evolutionary terms, with no firm conclusion as to whether they
      are actaully being selected for or against properly warranted at
      this time.


I don't believe three is viable because, based on my observations of my 
own mind, it isn't what others think of me which is what truly matters,
but WHAT I THINK OF MYSELF.   Sometimes this is heavily influenced by 
what others think of me, and therefore can be viewed as compatible with
your adaptionist thesis, but that is only on occasions where I'm already
having doubts, where the evidence suggesting I'm hot stuff might be 
swayed by argument, in this case the opinions of others.  On those 
occasions where I'm certain I'm right, the emotional cost/benefit 
comes out irrespective of my external status in a community, etc.  I 
have often found myself doing things which have actually decreased 
by status in my family and community simply because I was convinced
it was the right thing to do, and because I knew I would have to 
pay a heavy emotional price for ignoring my own conscience.  While
this doesn't seem all that radical from the perspective of what we
have come to understand about human beings, it doesn't make a whole
lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective, unless, of course, you
assume there is an entirely new dynamic which is coming into play
as the result of nature employing rationality to achieve here ends.


> How is this
> different to a meta-fear or a sub-fear? BTW, what do you make of fainting
> and phobias? Those are other situations where something overwhelms to the
> point of incapacitation.
> 

No insights here.

> [...]
> 
> > > Hmmm, how do you support the idea that most individuals are 'normal' in a
> > > 'not-disordered' sense? To me, most individuals are less- and more-
> > > disordered.
> >
> > You're preaching to the choir.
> 

By this, I was referring to my own view that there no such thing as free will,
rationality, normalcy, but rather, AS A DEDUCTION FROM MY THEORY, there is 
only less determined, less rational, less disordered, more normal, relative
to a comparative term, the norm, etc.  This would also be compatible with
the conclusions of Godel's theorem, as well, BTW, in my words, that rationality
can not be constrained within a formalism.  Its also the exact opposite of
Kant's position on rationality, if I'm not mistaken.

> Fine, so what is this non-disordered rationality? Elsewhere you posted
> this quote:
> 
> "My feelings a year hence should be just as important to me as my
> feelings next minute, if only I could make an equally sure forecast of
> them. Indeed this equal and impartial concern for all parts of one's
> conscious life is perhaps the most prominent element in the common notion
> of the _rational_." (Henry Sidgwick, 'The Methods of Ethics').
> 

This exemplifies the equal weight criterion presumed to underlie prudence.
Its an ideal which none of us can live up to, in all likelyhood, just as
'Love your neighbor as you love yourself' would be the hallmark of the
rational in my own theory, albeit an ideal which no one can or even should
try to live up to.  More rational, more moral, is the best you can hope
for, IMHO.

> Urrrggghhh. I just don't get it. I mean, yeah sure okay right if you
> wander along through life assuming you'll be alive next year, next week,
> next decade, whatever, then this makes some sort of sense. But what sort
> of rational mind would assume that they're going to stay alive for years
> and decades? Mine doesn't, I expect only those with what I would think of
> as unusual faith do.
> 

You go to the dentist only because your teeth will be unusable next year, 
rather than later in life?  Seems to me you would be better off sidestepping
the dentist chair if thats the only payoff you expect to receive. 

Also, remember, prudence is AN IDEAL.  That doesn't affect the fact that 
a THEORY which equates prudence with rationality is a viable theory
however.  It merely suggests that humans are a lot LESS RATIONAL than
they would like to think they are (for reasons of self-worth, no doubt).

> >
> > Maybe.  But we want to understand why they are naturalistically disordered,
> > which isn't quite so easy to dismiss -- why their valuative profile is
> > "red-shifted"
> 
> Can you explain this term?
> 

"Ruthless selfishness" is the theoretical prediction, a prediction confirmed
repeatedly in non-human species, benevolent selfishness is what we find 
in ourselves, although that doesn't quite cover the whole picture.

If our current understanding of Darwin is correct, we should have all of 
our INTRINSIC value located in ourselves and our immediate kin.  But when
we look at humans, we find that we actually value others intrinsically,
such as when we have concern for a bird with a broken wing, even thoughthere is nothing in it for us.  This is a "red-shift" away from the
ruthless selfishness we find elsewhere and predicted by natural selection.
In addition, not only do we have more value in others than we should, but
WE HAVE LESS VALUE IN OUSELVES, i.e., we have a significant volatility in
self worth, often manifesting itself in a life threatening deficiency in
self-interest.  So, when you combine the two, we have more value in others
and less in ourselves than we expect to find if natural selection is "true".
Another way of saying this is our valuative profile is "red-shifted" away
from "ruthless selfishness" in the direction of an increase in VALAUATVE 
OBJECTIVITY (valuative impartiality).  My theory simply attempts to explain
why, not in terms of what is directly adaptive, but in terms of what is
psychodynamically necessary (as a maladaptive by-product of the evolution
of rationalty).

> > away from the "ruthless selfishness" we find throughout the
> > rest of nature, and which is predicted by our current understanding of
> > how natural selection works.  That's not quite so easy to dismiss as a
> > cultural bias, on our parts.
> 
> I agree. I don't think it's quite as anomalous as has been suggested
> though. I don't think that setting up 'ruthless selfishness' and
> 'altruism' as the two options makes sense, and I think that once we
> recognise that defining the _species_ as either 'ruthlessly selfish' or
> 'altrusitic' is insupportable but that various _individuals_ have
> differing levels of each (and many other qualities) things start to add
> up a bit better, and within general understanding of natural selection.
> 

But why, if natural selection is the mechanism, is there one species which 
seems to violate the constraints.  I am supposing that its not because we
are group dependent, but rather because we are rational, that an incrase
in rationality FACILITATES an incrase in concern for others and a volatility 
in concern for one's self (emotional istability) IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS  
ADPATABILITY.  IOW, I am suggesting that we are beginning to observe some
of the internal dynamics of rationality itself beginning to usurp the dynamics
of natural selction, but which nature allows to occur to reap the still
considerable benefits (an incrase in THE FACILITY to survive at the price 
of a decrease in THE WILL to survive).

> 
> > In
> > the oval office, which is the result of all the input of your immediate experience
> > and on which your survival depends, you probably a close to thinking in terms of
> > being the center of the valuative universe, the most significant entity, etc.
> 
> By 'the oval office' are you referring to the so-called 'lizard brain' at
> the top of the spinal cord?
> 

No.  That would be our lower or natural emotions.  I'm referring to the reality
you compute as real, and vivid, as opposed to the reality you know about and
accept as "true".  You and I can accept we are insignificant at a theoretical
level, its just when Betty Lou dumps you for that nerdy guy down the street 
that you begin to REALIZE something you have been suspecting all along (I 
am insignificant).  I suspect you're trying to equate this with a physical 
location.  We're doing psychology here, boy, or at least I'm trying to.
Oval office is a metaphor.

> > Its keeping your theoreitcal, and more rational view, out of the oval office
> > which requires that we expend such huge quantites of effort and energy on
> > self-evaluating though and activity.
> 
> ...frontal lobe?
> 

Not a physical location, dummy.     :)   


-- 

                  Phil Roberts, Jr.

       The Psychodynamics of Genetic Indeterminism:
Why We Turned Out Like Captain Kirk Instead of Mr. Spock
     http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/