RE: FW: England humour

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Fri Sep 07 2001 - 15:48:11 BST

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: FW: England humour"

    Received: by id PAA10244 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:52:52 +0100
    From: Philip Jonkers <>
    X-Authentication-Warning: www-data set sender to jonkers@localhost using -f
    Subject: RE: FW: England humour
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:48:11 +0200 (CEST)
    References: <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.5
    Precedence: bulk

    Phil wrote:
    > <There must be some sociological reason for
    > > people taking up arms like that since they are prevalent all
    > > over the globe. Perhaps it's an expression
    > > of our natural lust for (tribal) warfare (survival of the
    > > fittest, the `it's either him or me' attitude) when we're
    > > lacking it now through modern-day society's inhibiting action
    > > (law, ethics, social control, etc.)
    > > It's seems to be our biological drive for animosity
    > > still calling the cards. Jerks from tucked away,
    > > long `forgotten' vestiges of brutal ancestry? >

    Vince wrote:
    > I vaguely remember Richard Wright in 'The Moral Animal'
    > talking about this kind of thing as one of the big problems for evolutionary
    > psychology. Through kin selection it's reasonably straightforward to
    > understand aggression towards non-family, and there's always
    > reciprocal alturism to explain nice behaviour to non-family,
    > but the capacity of humans to unite as units like fans of the
    > same football team, or as part of an ideological "nation"
    > ( in other words one that is more a construction than
    > being rooted in distinct ethnic/religious/geographical
    > origins, so nations like America or Australia I suppose;
    > although all nations are ideological in one sense or
    > another- Anderson's Imagined Community), doesn't seem to fit
    > into a simple e.p. explanation.

    Hi Vincent,

    I'd defend this:
    People cluster together as they're social animals who are better
    off living in a team. In the game of survival group forming is
    essential to increase odds of survival. Neighboring groups are
    simply considered as competitors and actually more-ore-less
    are feared as they fight over the same resources. I stick to
    the idea that aggression is always preceded by fear.

    > A gap here for memes to exploit? Genes drive kin selection, Memes
    > drive (some aspects/kinds of) nationalism?

    Nice angle...

    I'd say this:
    When it comes to nations. Culture has to be accounted for, as
    every nation has it's own peculiar set of customs, traditions,
    idealogies, and other memes. Memes seem to either divide (war)
    and unite (social clustering) thus increasing the gap between
    nations further. This is testified by the numerous
    conflicts fought over religion and polical idealogies,
    for instance. When you've adopted a meme inherent to some
    group/nation you're cool, you're one of them; if you don't
    you're considered a potential threat. Religion is based on
    this type of intolerance. When identified with the (honor o/t)
    nation, soccer can be war, only a small, quasi and
    insignificant one.


    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 2b29 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 16:02:47 BST