The Follet yarn has been on the ROKU -- and parts of it appear on youtube. I think we are up to chapter VI (that's roman for six for those of you in Rio Linda).
Greatest engineering disaster of gothic france -- Beauvais Cathedral!
I just finished Catch 22. The scene where Huple is dismembered by McWatts plane on the beach and McWatt deliberately flies his plane into the face of a mountain to avoid confronting the soldiers is horrifyingly overwhelming and abrupt. I found Heller's chronological disorder a powerful literary tool. He's able to satirize the war (very effectively, I might add. It is truly hilarious.) without decreasing his ability to invoke powerful, sobering emotions in the reader's mind. Easily one of the best books I've ever read. I won't say best, not from a lack of merit, but rather because Heller's style is so unique that a direct comparison with another novel would be missing the point.
I finished On Human Nature by Wilson a few days ago. The insights provided by the perspective of evolutionary psychology are very interesting. He covers Aggression, Altruism, Sex, and Religion from the perspective of evolution (5,000,000 BCE to modern times for genetic evolution and 10,000 BCE to modern times for cultural evolution). For genetic evolution, >99% of the time would be spent as Hunter-Gatherer groups. A few of his conclusions surprised me.
He observes behavior in ants, bees, and termites and relates this to society. Apparently, social insects conduct regular warfare and assassinations! He suggests that there is a particular termite(?) whose gland muscles spasm, causing the insect to explode and cover the area in a poison, killing a large number of enemy insects.
He suggests that if all humans possessed the quality of hard-core altruism (sacrifice without expectation of reciprocation, the quality many "view" in Mother Theresa) as opposed to indifference, the world would be destroyed by warfare. The alternative, soft-core altruism expects some sort of reciprocation (ie Doing acts to gain favor, to make yourself "feel" better without material reciprocation, bringing honor to your family, achieve a valuable place in the afterlife, etc). Altruism is always directed towards a specific group (if you love your family, you must love others less). Individuals and societies evolved to place humans in two groups: friend or enemy. (this may be why people naturally assume an event to have 2 polar interpretations, good or bad). As a result, the world would be filled with radical racists, nepotists, fundamentalists, and religious fanatics if good will evolved to the extreme. Events similar to the Holocaust would happen much more frequently.
The combination of genes related to Altruism would be passed down indirectly through the humans kin (individual sacrifice benefiting the group allowed the group to adapt better to the environment). He suggests homosexuals may have evolved in the same way.
Aggression evolved in the human mind as a means of density-based population control. Societies are peaceful if resources are available and warlike if resources are scarce. This quality is often cyclic (ex. society is very peaceful after previous generations destroyed other groups).
I highly recommend the book. It's a very cool perspective. My only complaint is the length of the book (~200 pages), I wish it went more in-depth. I plan on purchasing his recent work on insects (600-700? pages) which describes the social insects (individual organisms) as a single Superorganism (soldier ants are the immune system, the queen is the reproductive system, etc)
Anybody have any recommendations for an in-depth text on evolutionary psychology?
I'm about half-way through Atlas Shrugged. I've found the novel to be a very enjoyable medium to study philosophy. It's definitely had an impression on my perspectives on political organizations (capitalist vs socialist).
Could anybody recommend a novel which is similar (covers philosophy), but is of the opposite viewpoint (favors socialism instead of capitalism)?
Has anyone read Godel, Escher, Bach?
Thanks,
Thadman
He observes behavior in ants, bees, and termites and relates this to society. Apparently, social insects conduct regular warfare and assassinations! He suggests that there is a particular termite(?) whose gland muscles spasm, causing the insect to explode and cover the area in a poison, killing a large number of enemy insects.
He suggests that if all humans possessed the quality of hard-core altruism (sacrifice without expectation of reciprocation, the quality many "view" in Mother Theresa) as opposed to indifference, the world would be destroyed by warfare. The alternative, soft-core altruism expects some sort of reciprocation (ie Doing acts to gain favor, to make yourself "feel" better without material reciprocation, bringing honor to your family, achieve a valuable place in the afterlife, etc). Altruism is always directed towards a specific group (if you love your family, you must love others less). Individuals and societies evolved to place humans in two groups: friend or enemy. (this may be why people naturally assume an event to have 2 polar interpretations, good or bad). As a result, the world would be filled with radical racists, nepotists, fundamentalists, and religious fanatics if good will evolved to the extreme. Events similar to the Holocaust would happen much more frequently.
The combination of genes related to Altruism would be passed down indirectly through the humans kin (individual sacrifice benefiting the group allowed the group to adapt better to the environment). He suggests homosexuals may have evolved in the same way.
Aggression evolved in the human mind as a means of density-based population control. Societies are peaceful if resources are available and warlike if resources are scarce. This quality is often cyclic (ex. society is very peaceful after previous generations destroyed other groups).
I highly recommend the book. It's a very cool perspective. My only complaint is the length of the book (~200 pages), I wish it went more in-depth. I plan on purchasing his recent work on insects (600-700? pages) which describes the social insects (individual organisms) as a single Superorganism (soldier ants are the immune system, the queen is the reproductive system, etc)
Anybody have any recommendations for an in-depth text on evolutionary psychology?
I'm about half-way through Atlas Shrugged. I've found the novel to be a very enjoyable medium to study philosophy. It's definitely had an impression on my perspectives on political organizations (capitalist vs socialist).
Could anybody recommend a novel which is similar (covers philosophy), but is of the opposite viewpoint (favors socialism instead of capitalism)?
Has anyone read Godel, Escher, Bach?
Thanks,
Thadman
I may not have done the best job conveying his ideas. There is a reason the book is over 200 pages. It would be ridiculous to suggest a forum post could contain all of the theory. You should read the book before you dismiss it. It's not too long and his writing is very enjoyable to read.
I could provide excerpts from the book which provide some of the reasoning behind his conclusions. However, I'm not sure if thats appropriate.
So the upshot is - if the world is populated solely by Mother Theresas, they're all going to bomb each other to bits. I agree with stalker, the notion is quite hilarious. And this bizarre notion is supported by findings in evolutionary psychology?
I had thought Wilson was pretty much on-the-money. Now I'm not so sure. Maslow covered this years ago in his hierarchy of needs as far as I can see. When a person is at levels 1-4, this corresponds to 'soft-core altruism'. When they reach level 5, that's the 'Mother Theresa' level where their needs for self-actualization come to the fore - no reciprocation is required.
Must be using a particularly weird definition of 'love' to reach this conclusion.
That's one of Wilson's claims? That the purpose of co-operation amongst humans is to categorise people? I'm betting he has zero evidence for that claim.
No, that comes from thinking too much.
I'm reminded here of some words from Douglas Adams - "the Babelfish proves you exist, therefore you don't. QED. And man goes on to prove that black = white and promptly is killed on the next zebra crossing...".
If Wilson's book, On Human Nature actually reaches the conclusions that you suggest, then that book may not make my list.
Why don't you read some of the real Classics and find out what original minds thought, rather than a somewhat half-baked commentary that takes a pinch of this and some of that, in a seldom realized effort to be taken seriously.
If one wants a truly original thesis on Human Nature, then perhaps one of the very best is the book: Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Often cited as the foundation of Economics, it is much more than that and was a key document in the Scottish Enlightenment (which had a far greater impact on the shaping of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution than the better known, and far less important, French version). His close acquaintance with the so-called Scottish Tobacco Lords, many who had lived in America, gave him keen insights into the fundamental weaknesses of the British Mercantile System and the basic Character of the American Colonists. He also correctly predicted (and completely supported) what, on the eve of the American Revolution, would eventually come to pass.
To read about Adam Smith is an exercise in frustration, as Historians take one approach, Philosophers a slightly different view, while Economists tend to have another version, and Sociologists still another.
In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that it's best to read his book for yourself. I believe that you'll find it extremely relevant, especially in today's economy. Perhaps the "best" edition of the work may be the University of Chicago Press edition, edited by Edwin Canaan.
[Note: Adam Smith never subscribed to, nor used, the French economic notion of Laissez-faire capitalism and even saw an important role for a strong national government, contrary to modern myths.]
Best Regards,
TerryO
Why don't you read some of the real Classics and find out what original minds thought, rather than a somewhat half-baked commentary that takes a pinch of this and some of that, in a seldom realized effort to be taken seriously.
If one wants a truly original thesis on Human Nature, then perhaps one of the very best is the book: Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Often cited as the foundation of Economics, it is much more than that and was a key document in the Scottish Enlightenment (which had a far greater impact on the shaping of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution than the better known, and far less important, French version). His close acquaintance with the so-called Scottish Tobacco Lords, many who had lived in America, gave him keen insights into the fundamental weaknesses of the British Mercantile System and the basic Character of the American Colonists. He also correctly predicted (and completely supported) what, on the eve of the American Revolution, would eventually come to pass.
To read about Adam Smith is an exercise in frustration, as Historians take one approach, Philosophers a slightly different view, while Economists tend to have another version, and Sociologists still another.
In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that it's best to read his book for yourself. I believe that you'll find it extremely relevant, especially in today's economy. Perhaps the "best" edition of the work may be the University of Chicago Press edition, edited by Edwin Canaan.
[Note: Adam Smith never subscribed to, nor used, the French economic notion of Laissez-faire capitalism and even saw an important role for a strong national government, contrary to modern myths.]
Best Regards,
TerryO
Word (always wanted to use this one), hence my earlier recommendation to read Thomas Hobbes, in my view he was really influential on the Wilson's way of thinking, even though he (Wilson) might not realize it.
For a different take on biological explanations I suggest reading D.S Wilson/E. Sober Unto Others. However the whole debate is - in my view - highly ideological. While I would call Sober/Wilson quite level headed another biologist, S.J. Gould, criticized Wilson quite harshly from another ideological point of view in The Mismeasure of Man. If you want to read some IMHO good overview over the whole debate about biological explanations of human behavior you should check U.Segerstråle: Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate.
In general I would recommend not taking anything relating to human behavior that is presented as science as a fact. There are always politics involved when one talks about human nature, even if the authors refuse to admit it.
I've taken the liberty of highlighting your point, well taken IMHO, about being careful in choosing some of the controversal areas of current scientific debate, as what you've noted is certainly true.
The reading of the original classics which have withstood the test of time, and I may add, criticism, is the surest path to take in understanding what has shaped and defined our current thinking.
Best Regards,
TerryO
I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to quote sections from Dr. Wilson's book, but I assume he would prefer it to his work being misrepresented or taken out of context. Here are some significant quotes from the chapter on Altruism. (mods, if this is inappropriate, please delete this post.)
On Human Nature p149 said:
On Human Nature p152-153 said:
On Human Nature p153-154 said:
On Human Nature p155-156 said:
On Human Nature p157 said:
Now it sounds much better but still don't like much what he says. I haven't read all the quotes though. IMO true altruism is a kind of mental disease- it goes against the human instinct for survival. It also distinguishes special individuals from common ones. It only affects those who have a higher intellect, and a deep love for humanity. Nietzsche explained it well but I can't remember his quotes. To him Socrates and Jesus were "sick" people because they didn't have the natural will to live, decadents which lowered the value of life. Read The Birth of Tragedy.
Wilson shouldn't mix insects with men.
A true altruist doesn't want to be a hero. Altruism in small doses keeps happy the vanity of some men.
Still, about human nature the best I have read comes from Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.
Wilson shouldn't mix insects with men.
A true altruist doesn't want to be a hero. Altruism in small doses keeps happy the vanity of some men.
Still, about human nature the best I have read comes from Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.
Extraordinary book, and incredibly depressing. There was one chapter (I think it was chromium) that I used to make all our QC guys read.
Like it or not, its quite simply wrong.
Just taking the first example, that of the words of Tertullian. Its important to note that Tertullian was a orthodox member of the established church, but that not all Christians at that time subscribed to his view of martyrdom. As Elaine Pagels makes clear in her 'The Gnostic Gospels' the most altruistic - aka gnostics - (they were egalitarian, Tertullian was notoriously sexist) considered martyrdom rather crazy.
The knowledge of Levi's past permeates the book, as does the imminence of his eventual fate. There were no morals, no inspirations, no hopefulness, just a cold and analytical view of the uselessness of humanity and the sterile beauty of science. These vignettes were of a piece with "If This Is A Man."
A similarly bitter view of humankind informs "The Drowned and the Saved." Not that he was wrong, mind you...
A similarly bitter view of humankind informs "The Drowned and the Saved." Not that he was wrong, mind you...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.