The idea of the in-group, out-group, of course. As the Baron so delicately put it, it does not result in impotency between groups. Which makes it a socially conditioned behaviour, a form of tribalism that disappears upon familiarity.
More Scientific Nonsense
- Thread starter Atom
- Start date
The idea of the in-group, out-group, of course. As the Baron so delicately put it, it does not result in impotency between groups. Which makes it a socially conditioned behaviour, a form of tribalism that disappears upon familiarity.
Donkey freaking dung.
Let me guess, you're a pure <insert line of tribe>
Huh? That's pure fuckin' psycho-babble bullshit at it's finest!!
Where, Sam, is there any evidence of such unlike groups integrating so peacefully as you'd suggest? And if you mention India, I'm going to puke all over my computer and simply not respond!
Baron Max
Of course it's socially conditioned behavior. Duh.
But would you perhaps take a gander at why you can condition it in cheerleaders and 9 year old British test subjects and Jews, Indians or Indonesian tribesmen?
I'll give you a hint. It begins with D, and ends with eoxyribonucleic acid.
Interesting; and the fact that you are white and American does not show you how much bull that theory is?
Shouldn't you be black and African instead?
YES! HA!
I'm guessing you're another pure bred African.
Can you even comprehend the idea that individual experience means squat? Look at the big picture.
How many tribes went into your genes?
...not following. Wouldn't the argument be- shouldn't there be more races if we're so fractitious, not fewer?
I'm curious; how can something be a result of 'social programming' if we don't posses the genes that regulate the interpretation of such environmental cues? Do you think we're a totally blank slate, capable of living in whatever society we're programmed to live in? We could all live like ants, if 'socially conditioned', or like cows, or never compete with each other, if properly conditioned?
Sam, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic!! We're talking about the here and now, not the distant past or the distant future.
Baron Max
Thats why the ones who don't adapt are selected against.
Reproductive success is clearly at odds with this paradigm, isn't it? I'd point to rape... or as the Baron so succinctly put it, my willingness to jam my cock into any wet, warm inviting hole (man have I got some embarrassing stories!!). But that doesn't seem to point one way or another to group behavior, does it? Kin selection, perhaps? Favor those who are like you, because that likely means they are genetically similar? That would lead to group competition, but still be mitigated by a males willingness to sow them wild oats. Tribal blending in the context of males in competition over mates, but tribal conflict because there's a limited amount of resources, and one should put family (aka, those that look, smell, act like you, etc.) before strangers that you can get to fucking later, once you've got enough resources to do so.
The way I see it, survival spells success; the longest surviving civilisations were either inaccessible or assimilated.
And you're thinking individual, but group wise how many men would consciously want a child that looks nothing like them? The phenotype is socially conditioned, but genetic conditioning means that it really does not matter if the woman is of your tribe. You can call it conditioning, I call it diluting your unique qualities.
When I'm banging hot natives, the last thing on my mind is what my child will look like.
Right.
Now imagine that you decide that natives are beneath you and consciously keep away from them. You marry only your kind. Your group gets together and avoids outsiders; punishes any one who breaks the rules by kicking them out. Concepts of pure blood and supremacy reign. Who are you really hurting?
Right.
Now imagine that you decide that natives are beneath you and consciously keep away from them. You marry only your kind. Your group gets together and avoids outsiders; punishes any one who breaks the rules by kicking them out. Concepts of pure blood and supremacy reign. Who are you really hurting?
Yeah, but what if I secretly bang hot natives? It worked for Thomas Jefferson!
So it could be different cues:
See a brown person, not want to share.
See a lusty, brown babe, of childbearing stature, and your competitive thoughts turn off, and other thoughts are, uh, turned on.
Edit
Marriage?
Wtf?
What sort of advantage does MARRIAGE have?
Actually, we're arguing sort of black and white, but I'm certain the truth is in the middle. Yes, people are hard wired for group behavior; that doesn't mean we are incapable of behaving otherwise, or have contradictory wiring to tell us to behave differently to maximize fitness. Organisms aren't ideologues, after all.
But that brings me back to marriage. In many human societies, monogamy is absolutized, moralized, scandalized. But if you look at monogamy in the animal world (or apparent monogamy), many times it's rife with cheating. Why? Because having a mate look after offspring and sharing resource gathering mitigates individual cost BUT sleeping around also increases fitness. Both behaviors must increase fitness, otherwise we wouldn't see such finely evolved behaviors in the same organism.
I did some genetics work for a woman who was studying this exact thing in the supposedly monogamous black capped chick-a-dee. She got some veerrry interesting results. Big project, though.
Last edited:
Then you're not really into the group think are you?
There is greater genetic diversity among the blacks in Africa, than there is in populations that migrated. A lack of adaptation, in my opinion, is not a free lunch.
See my edit- it's not an either/or, all/or nothing proposition.
It's like claiming a behavior is ONLY nurture or ONLY nature. Clearly behaviors involve both components. Unless you're a dualist. In which case, I'm not really interested in discussing this any further.