UNLIMITED holist appreciation thread

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced. And most people (those whose early years are spent in a community that is functional enough) spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

Since you don't seem to understand evolutionary biology, let's improve your argument.

A spandrel, sensu Gould and Lewontin, is a character of a species or higher group of organisms that does not have adaptive significance. It is a product of evolutionary contingency, but does not serve any adaptive function. As an aside, he tendency to assign adaptive value to every character is known as the Panglossian Paradigm, also in that same paper.

So, what you are saying is that the unwillingness to admit mistakes has no adaptive significance, but the measure of adaptive significance is fecundity, not emotional well being. Your argument should be that the unwillingness to admit mistake has no significance on fecundity. Furthermore, your argument revolves around a behavior that has lost adaptive significance recently, which is not the character of a spandrel. Instead, in your argument, the behavior should be called vestigial.

But even with these changes your argument is unfounded. There is no evidence that an unwillingness to admit mistakes has loss adaptive significance, i.e. has lost its impact on fecundity, the /only/ relevant measure of evolutionary success. Nor that it is socially unacceptable (any gander at political battles will show this). Furthermore, there is no "optimal in the evolutionary sense", only "whatever works".

*goes back to work on actual biology*

CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP.

[Dildo Argentino]

Yeah, it's happened the other way. I have changed my mind due to some of the discussions here, and I have had people tell me that my arguments on stances I brought to the board changed their mind. Now what? Claim that it's because I bullied them?

Nothing of the sort. I was just interested. Thanks.

[Dildo Argentino]

Dear non-Alty Hungarian hippy:

Nobody cares. 

Well, a few do, but they don't give a tangible shit, so either kill your stupid fucking self or get over it and DO something.  Just because you think you're smarter than Isaac J Einstein but whiny as hell or a pretty girl with a bitchy temperament that spoils your looks don't mean JACK to the revenue office.  That dick ain't gonna cut itself off and shit ain't gonna leap INTO your arse spontaneously.  No, you have to hack & stuff on yer own, regardless of the number of Discordians, modern medicine advocates, and menacing Eastern-European children arrayed against you.  All you humans are stupid. 

And stop using beer as a Nyquil chaser. Its making your ears flap like Mothra barnstorming Osaka.

Yours Truly,
Neville Chamberlain

Cheers, Nev 

[Phox]

Dear Holist,

I have pondered your post very hard.

There is a phrase, with which you may perhaps be familiar,  that accurately sums up the response of the critically thinking Übermenschen to whom you speak at this time: LOLWUT.

To elaborate, your grasp of evolutionary theory is tenuous at best, but you have already been suitably reprimanded by my much superior half on this topic, so I will not attempt to further that,  but your grasp of social history is, quite sadly, completely contrary to most readily reviewed sources, especially observing actual societies. But there is much ground to cover, and time is short at the moment, so let me begin with the idea that: "being misunderstood and rejected is not a big deal in this day and age". First of all, I will point out that even "in this day and age" there are precious few truly pluralistic localities, let alone societies at large. Take, for instance, the American Mormon. If you live in a Mormon community, and break one of the tenants of the Mormon religion, say, ingesting caffeine, even by accident, you stand a fair chance of losing everything. Far more risky is actually leaving the Mormon faith. Friends, family, co-workers will not even speak to you. You stand a fair chance of losing your job and possibly your home. Needless to say, you are more or less dead to the Church, and there is no real recourse that you have.  (here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Mormon) This is a small and highly visible example of this, but there are cultures like this everywhere in the world. Let's next point out that your use of the word "misunderstood" is highly ambiguous. Do you mean misunderstood verbally, or misunderstood on a broader level? Either way, there are numerous examples where being "misunderstood" in some form has resulted in ostracism or worse, even in recent years.

Next, there has never really been a society in which there was "one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world" there has, quite literally since the beginnings of humankind been cultural exchange between groups. Furthermore, it's not as if people living in a given culture do not have individualism of any type like some sort of hivemind, and those who do individual things are immediately persecuted. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Now, consider: does it stand to reason that a person would be more willing to accept an idea or criticism from a fellow tribesman than from an outsider? Overwhelmingly yes. Is your assertion, as it appears to be, that in your idealized "monoculture" groupthink will be the watchword, and that it would take "The White Man's Burden" to teach those poor, dumb savages what it means to be individuals? The fact is people are generally more open to those with whom they share a common bond. Admitting one is wrong is MORE likely in a tribal society, not less.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for your counseling, and praise you for your prowess at remote psychoanalysis. No, really. It's not at all offensive to say that most people in the world come from dysfunctional families, nor to apply that generalization specifically to PDers. In fact, since I've known you since December or so, would you mind writing me a letter saying that I underwent counseling with you? I need one for my doctor. I mean, you might have to fudge the timing because i need at least 3 months, but you know.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Finally, I'd like to thank you for your counseling, and praise you for your prowess at remote psychoanalysis. No, really. It's not at all offensive to say that most people in the world come from dysfunctional families, nor to apply that generalization specifically to PDers. In fact, since I've known you since December or so, would you mind writing me a letter saying that I underwent counseling with you? I need one for my doctor. I mean, you might have to fudge the timing because i need at least 3 months, but you know.

Seriously.  My childhood and family situation was disgustingly stable, well-managed, and enlightened.  My parents stayed together, didn't abuse us or each other, I had a first-rate education, and my family moved from relative poverty to upper-class wealth between (my) age 8-15. 

And you see how I turned out.

So I urge all of you:  Drink a lot, fight, neglect your kids, and don't worry about their educations.  It's better that way, apparently.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Where the hell is the ignore button?

I don't need a button. My brain point blank refuses to process anything the cunt says anymore, regardless of whether I try or not. 

I never could get through it. Just trying to cut down the scrolling and page loading.

[Internet Jesus]

...  transforming yourself into a "threat" (not really but for lack of a better word, it will do) to the group.

I think "irritation" may be a better term?

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. But at some point, the analogy is bound to fail: I am not a chimp, and neither is anyone else here. In particular, no band of chimps claims to place great value on rational discussion.

I don't expect you to go through my history here, but that's what I have been doing, several times now, to try to figure out what went wrong.

Beginning with orthographic posturing, and then sticking by it, was clearly stupid. Picking homeopathy as a first major subject was looking for a fight. I (eventually) realised this, admitted it, and apologised for it.

But the other times I was cluster-shat upon, much as I try to distance myself from them, still appear to be overwhelmingly unfair. I was less than crystal clear about the points I was trying to make, but I did nothing to merit accusations of sexism, racism, dishonesty or contempt for this group. Which is kind of sad.

I think you are totally right, I could be in a better situation now had I remained quiet for longer and had I been very judicious about contributing when I did start it. But that is not where I am at now. (Oh, and the Ayotollah, who is certainly capable of being very clear, also encountered the same thing.) If a group attacks this viciously for questioning some of the common beliefs of the group, that group is dogmatic. Even if it is entirely justified in its dogmatism because of the countless idiots who have attempted to change the power structure. I have already encountered a number of stories in which someone came to PD, read a lot, and ended up changing some pretty important beliefs as a result. I wonder, has that ever happened the other way? Or is that inconceivable?

Two things that would make for happy fun exciting te for all and possibly blowjobs for some:

Practice concision.  If you can't say it in three lines or less, consider not saying until a simpler formulation strikes you.  I'd get into the whys here but I am on line two.

Do not get lost in the particulars of an argument, most of it is usually decorations on the Christmas tree, but learn to try And understand the direction an argument is trying to go.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

...  transforming yourself into a "threat" (not really but for lack of a better word, it will do) to the group.

I think "irritation" may be a better term?

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. But at some point, the analogy is bound to fail: I am not a chimp, and neither is anyone else here. In particular, no band of chimps claims to place great value on rational discussion.

I don't expect you to go through my history here, but that's what I have been doing, several times now, to try to figure out what went wrong.

Beginning with orthographic posturing, and then sticking by it, was clearly stupid. Picking homeopathy as a first major subject was looking for a fight. I (eventually) realised this, admitted it, and apologised for it.

But the other times I was cluster-shat upon, much as I try to distance myself from them, still appear to be overwhelmingly unfair. I was less than crystal clear about the points I was trying to make, but I did nothing to merit accusations of sexism, racism, dishonesty or contempt for this group. Which is kind of sad.

I think you are totally right, I could be in a better situation now had I remained quiet for longer and had I been very judicious about contributing when I did start it. But that is not where I am at now. (Oh, and the Ayotollah, who is certainly capable of being very clear, also encountered the same thing.) If a group attacks this viciously for questioning some of the common beliefs of the group, that group is dogmatic. Even if it is entirely justified in its dogmatism because of the countless idiots who have attempted to change the power structure. I have already encountered a number of stories in which someone came to PD, read a lot, and ended up changing some pretty important beliefs as a result. I wonder, has that ever happened the other way? Or is that inconceivable?

Two things that would make for happy fun exciting te for all and possibly blowjobs for some:

Practice concision.  If you can't say it in three lines or less, consider not saying until a simpler formulation strikes you.  I'd get into the whys here but I am on line two.

Do not get lost in the particulars of an argument, most of it is usually decorations on the Christmas tree, but learn to try And understand the direction an argument is trying to go.

You realize that you're talking to our version of Gaggie, right?

[Kai]

I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced. And most people (those whose early years are spent in a community that is functional enough) spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

Since you don't seem to understand evolutionary biology, let's improve your argument.

A spandrel, sensu Gould and Lewontin, is a character of a species or higher group of organisms that does not have adaptive significance. It is a product of evolutionary contingency, but does not serve any adaptive function. As an aside, he tendency to assign adaptive value to every character is known as the Panglossian Paradigm, also in that same paper.

So, what you are saying is that the unwillingness to admit mistakes has no adaptive significance, but the measure of adaptive significance is fecundity, not emotional well being. Your argument should be that the unwillingness to admit mistake has no significance on fecundity. Furthermore, your argument revolves around a behavior that has lost adaptive significance recently, which is not the character of a spandrel. Instead, in your argument, the behavior should be called vestigial.

But even with these changes your argument is unfounded. There is no evidence that an unwillingness to admit mistakes has loss adaptive significance, i.e. has lost its impact on fecundity, the /only/ relevant measure of evolutionary success. Nor that it is socially unacceptable (any gander at political battles will show this). Furthermore, there is no "optimal in the evolutionary sense", only "whatever works".

*goes back to work on actual biology*

Requoting, because I did not write this to have it not addressed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced. And most people (those whose early years are spent in a community that is functional enough) spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

Since you don't seem to understand evolutionary biology, let's improve your argument.

A spandrel, sensu Gould and Lewontin, is a character of a species or higher group of organisms that does not have adaptive significance. It is a product of evolutionary contingency, but does not serve any adaptive function. As an aside, he tendency to assign adaptive value to every character is known as the Panglossian Paradigm, also in that same paper.

So, what you are saying is that the unwillingness to admit mistakes has no adaptive significance, but the measure of adaptive significance is fecundity, not emotional well being. Your argument should be that the unwillingness to admit mistake has no significance on fecundity. Furthermore, your argument revolves around a behavior that has lost adaptive significance recently, which is not the character of a spandrel. Instead, in your argument, the behavior should be called vestigial.

But even with these changes your argument is unfounded. There is no evidence that an unwillingness to admit mistakes has loss adaptive significance, i.e. has lost its impact on fecundity, the /only/ relevant measure of evolutionary success. Nor that it is socially unacceptable (any gander at political battles will show this). Furthermore, there is no "optimal in the evolutionary sense", only "whatever works".

*goes back to work on actual biology*

Requoting, because I did not write this to have it not addressed.

He'll just ignore it again.  He's not here to argue actual points, he's here to show us.  To show us all.  So when you post an actual scientific definition, he'll blow right past it...Or explain why you and the rest of the scientific community are wrong, in the same manner he explains why water has a memory and why he can psychologically examine people via PD.

[Phox]

I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced. And most people (those whose early years are spent in a community that is functional enough) spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

Since you don't seem to understand evolutionary biology, let's improve your argument.

A spandrel, sensu Gould and Lewontin, is a character of a species or higher group of organisms that does not have adaptive significance. It is a product of evolutionary contingency, but does not serve any adaptive function. As an aside, he tendency to assign adaptive value to every character is known as the Panglossian Paradigm, also in that same paper.

So, what you are saying is that the unwillingness to admit mistakes has no adaptive significance, but the measure of adaptive significance is fecundity, not emotional well being. Your argument should be that the unwillingness to admit mistake has no significance on fecundity. Furthermore, your argument revolves around a behavior that has lost adaptive significance recently, which is not the character of a spandrel. Instead, in your argument, the behavior should be called vestigial.

But even with these changes your argument is unfounded. There is no evidence that an unwillingness to admit mistakes has loss adaptive significance, i.e. has lost its impact on fecundity, the /only/ relevant measure of evolutionary success. Nor that it is socially unacceptable (any gander at political battles will show this). Furthermore, there is no "optimal in the evolutionary sense", only "whatever works".

*goes back to work on actual biology*

Requoting, because I did not write this to have it not addressed.

You may be sorely disappointed on that score, because holist has a history of failing to address substantive arguments, and either dismissing them out of hand, or simply ignoring them until they are buried under a deluge of muck and faeces.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced. And most people (those whose early years are spent in a community that is functional enough) spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

Since you don't seem to understand evolutionary biology, let's improve your argument.

A spandrel, sensu Gould and Lewontin, is a character of a species or higher group of organisms that does not have adaptive significance. It is a product of evolutionary contingency, but does not serve any adaptive function. As an aside, he tendency to assign adaptive value to every character is known as the Panglossian Paradigm, also in that same paper.

So, what you are saying is that the unwillingness to admit mistakes has no adaptive significance, but the measure of adaptive significance is fecundity, not emotional well being. Your argument should be that the unwillingness to admit mistake has no significance on fecundity. Furthermore, your argument revolves around a behavior that has lost adaptive significance recently, which is not the character of a spandrel. Instead, in your argument, the behavior should be called vestigial.

But even with these changes your argument is unfounded. There is no evidence that an unwillingness to admit mistakes has loss adaptive significance, i.e. has lost its impact on fecundity, the /only/ relevant measure of evolutionary success. Nor that it is socially unacceptable (any gander at political battles will show this). Furthermore, there is no "optimal in the evolutionary sense", only "whatever works".

*goes back to work on actual biology*

Requoting, because I did not write this to have it not addressed.

You may be sorely disappointed on that score, because holist has a history of failing to address substantive arguments, and either dismissing them out of hand, or simply ignoring them until they are buried under a deluge of muck and faeces.

I am muck and faeces.  However, it also pleases me to requote Kai's post until Holist responds. 

[Internet Jesus]

You realize that you're talking to our version of Gaggie, right?

Really?  I thought he was your version of LC, not gaggster.  He seems more like the type who's been told he's special so many times that he doesn't bother to question it or think he can learn from others than he does a meth fiend on a righteous bender for truth and great justice, but you know the lay of the land better than I do.

[Dildo Argentino]

I have read both Kai's and Phox's criticisms of my thinking. I am busy, but as soon as I have some time, I will respond. As far as I can see, there will be admissions of mistakes (here's one up front: spandrel was definitely the wrong word, thank you for clearing that up) as well as clarification. I do wish to add that I offered these ideas as a sort of "just so story".

In the meantime, I would like to ask one question of Dr. Phox (a genuine question, this): if, in your view, there has always been cultural interaction and exchange between groups since the beginning of humans, why is there such a marked apparent acceleration of cultural change in the archaeological record once the paleolithic changes into the neolithic? Is it perhaps only apparent? Or is it possible that cultural interaction and exchange reached a different level, a kind of critical mass around then? (Or some other reason?)

Also: I will try to describe, once again, and with great care, the difference that I sense between the consciousness/sense of self/individuality of someone from a dominantly monolithic (tribal) culture and someone from the "culture soup" that is found in many places today. I am interested in that difference. But I would like to reject the accusation that I see any sort of superiority relationship there ("white man's burden" or "noble savage"). Should any of my ideas lead to such conclusions, I will drop the ideas. Given the amount of work and toddler-minding and art therapy for my terribul childhood and IRL meetings I have lined up, I will probably not get around to this until Friday. But I will definitely get around to it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also: I will try to describe, once again, and with great care, the difference that I sense between the consciousness/sense of self/individuality of someone from a dominantly monolithic (tribal) culture and someone from the "culture soup" that is found in many places today. I am interested in that difference. But I would like to reject the accusation that I see any sort of superiority relationship there ("white man's burden" or "noble savage"). Should any of my ideas lead to such conclusions, I will drop the ideas. Given the amount of work and toddler-minding and art therapy for my terribul childhood and IRL meetings I have lined up, I will probably not get around to this until Friday. But I will definitely get around to it.

Argle bargle bargle.