From: Keith Henson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat 28 Jan 2006 - 00:29:26 GMT
At 10:22 AM 1/27/2006 +0000, you wrote:
> > Can you folks stand an EP analysis?
>Yeah I reckon, because there's something very deep going on here that goes
>waaaay back; and while I think you'd make a biological brain-structure
>argument and I'd make a kind of 'sub-memetic' argument (ignore that for
>now -- I just don't have a better phrase) the inputs and outcomes are the
>same if you squint a little (and your grasp of prehistory trumps mine).
I am a special case in the EP world. Few people are as motivated as I am
to understand what drives the cult fringes of society. *My* self-sacrifice
in trying to expose the vicious, legal system corrupting, cult may yet get
First, you need to analyze human behaviors as if they were still living in
a tribe and surrounded by relatives because that's the conditions under
which we evolved. So, for example, when someone jumps on a hand grenade,
they are not doing their genes a bit of good since the people they are
saving are not close relatives, but you have to analyze the psychological
traits that lead to the act *as if they were saving a number of close
relatives.* It doesn't make a bit of biological/evolutionary sense otherwise.
Anyway . . . Strong emotions are often very costly to an individual's genes
considering what people do under the influence of strong emotions (i.e.,
the individual often *dies*). To account for genes--that build
brains--that have detrimental effects on the individual, you have to look
for the effects these genes have on *inclusive*
Over evolutionary time the genes of humans whose emotional response (and
behavior) improved inclusive fitness did better than those who did not have
such emotional responses and behaviors, *even if their emotional responses
and behavior killed them.*
A lot of well-remembered stories that resonate down through the centuries
have this element in them--Horatio at the Bridge and the stand by the
Spartans at Thermopylae to cite two famous ones. For that matter, it is
the underlying theme of Christianity.
While the *particular details* of the stories are cultural, the
psychological traits that drive the stories' continued (memetic)
propagation is ultimately genetic, the legacy of millions of years of
selection for psychological traits that improved inclusive fitness.
The traits that we have strong positive feelings about are those expressed
in people who are operating in "inclusive fitness" mode, saving others at
considerable risk to ourselves, from parents saving children to a random
citizen saving the life of a stranger.
The reason we have strong emotions while hearing or seeing stories about
self-sacrifice and loyalty (to get back at last to the dog story) is that
they are activating our emotions that are part of our legacy of inclusive
fitness psychological traits. If anyone wanted to go looking with fMRI,
they could find the actual brain areas activated while watching/hearing
this high emotion class of story.
>>At 07:52 AM 1/26/2006 -0500, Scott wrote:
>>>But, beyond that, what is it about such stories that have an emotional
>>>impact upon people. I admit to geting choked up as I watched the
>>>depiction of the terrier's behavior on TV. There's gotta be something
>>>innate in this phenomonon, that such altruistic acts can result in a
>>>deeply felt emotional reaction.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 28 Jan 2006 - 01:10:34 GMT