Quote:
Originally Posted by evolveme
I read what you were saying here and immediately began to look for explanations in terms of the social sciences. Recently, in a tough conversation I was having with my best friend, she told me that I tend too often to intellectualize what isn't and asked me if this isn't a coping mechanism for something. (I've actually been accused of the intellectualizing thing a few times before, so I had to stop and consider her words seriously.) It may be that I'm distancing from emotions, but I know that I just happen to think in this way, so if you'll bear with me (or not):
Anyway, I'm rather a fan of the sciences, and the social sciences especially. I think that even if there is a reason for a behavior on an individual/personal level, there is a fairly large degree of possibility that it is correlating to another level of "cause." In other words, human action can be seen in quadrants of behavior from the independent, intentional level to the behavioral to the cultural and collective, and sometimes an action may unite on all levels, even while the individual conceives of themselves acting out of independent intention.
I guess if we're talking about what behaviors are counter productive, but which we see happening often, it's useful (to my thinking) to consider the root of *all* the reasons.
|
I am not at all in disagreement with your looking at these things from this perspective - I actually tend to get really excited when people start talking the way you're talking. I guess I think of human beings as pack animals like other primates. I don't know nearly enough about primate pack behavior, but I do think different people have different roles and functions within the given pack. Though I am not wholly satisfied with the ennagram, it's one of those systems I think about a lot when it comes to how humans relate and why. I do think there are kind of built-in pack behaviors that fall somewhere between "we all act this way for the exact same reason" and "we are all special individualist snowflakes acting for reasons entirely unique to ourselves."
Hmm I think I misread this statement: "it's useful (to my thinking) to consider the root of *all* the reasons"
I read it as looking for the each root for each of the reasons, but now I think you are saying there is one root to all the reasons?
Maybe that root *is* competition - I definitely can't say you're wrong.
Going back to what I was saying about primate pack behavior -
I think pack behavior is a combination of herd behavior and hunting behavior. Herds (and schools of fish even) survive by rejecting the members that are different or hurt and by always trying to stay close to the center so they won't be picked off. (I'm not a scientist here, maybe I'm missing some steps).
Group-hunting requires more different roles within a group. You have to have the caretakers, you have the observant types, the aggressive types, the peacemaking types, the strong group-cohesion types, the industrious, the inventive, the single-minded, the balanced-minded, the perfectionists, and the people to say, "that's not going to work!", etc. Any one of those types can exhibit a behavior and it can be for a reason more specific to their type.
Empathy itself is not something universally experienced (from what I understand) but reactions to feelings of empathy are also various. Some people just want to get away from whatever is causing them to have an uncomfortable feeling, others attack, others seek to comfort, etc.
I don't know if I have a real working theory here, but I agree with you that for the most part we are as humans coded by evolution to create progeny and ensure that progeny's survival, so even though most of us in this community don't create progeny, I definitely think it makes sense that we are encoded as humans.
Where I feel like you and I might differ is what the very rootiest root part is to all those various behaviors. It very well may be competition, but I rub up against the need for group cohesion and the advantage of multiple roles and cooperation very quickly when I try to go down that route. If we were only competitive, wouldn't we have just killed each other off by now? Heh. I guess maybe there's a real competition between Hobbes' "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" idea of every person for theirself (pronoun ugh) and the idea that pack and social cooperation and cohesion are so innate to the species.
Hey - my googlefu tells me Hobbes at least gave 3 reasons for human conflict:
competition, diffidence and glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.
If I had to choose one of those reasons as the rootiest one, I might go first with safety. But it might competition is nice and would suffice.
I don't know if I've said anything at all here that makes sense, but I have this uncontrollable impulse to hit "Submit Reply" and get out of the quicksand I find myself in.
