Posted by alexandra_k on August 6, 2013, at 5:12:57
In reply to Re: this community, posted by alexandra_k on August 5, 2013, at 1:00:39
I read this book ages ago. When I was just starting out. And I rediscovered it today. I... Didn't know what I was reading before. I have more context for it now. And it is helping by describing a bunch of notions I had a vague idea of (but should have known by now and hence too embarrassed to ask - yes i can be stupid sometimes)... Reasonably simply.
ALTRUISM
putting others welfare before your own.
Darwin award - right?
Or maybe not...
Frank offers some wonderfully simple examples of how different co-operative (or un-co-operative) strategies might evolve.
There were a couple paragraphs that I can't find right now (becaues I don't have a f*ck*ng library card and googlebooks is being un-co-operative) but he is talking about the benefits of co-operation. Most theorists are fixated on the benefits of co-operation (I've been thinking to myself over the last couple years). The idea being that what I can achieve individually is not as good at what I can achieve as being part of a team.
And the problem... Is that... I simply don't buy it.
A certain person said: We are obligate co-operators. We haven't been able to go it alone for thousands of years. And I wondered about the people who go off in the desert for 7 years... or whatever. Robinson Crusoe. I bet there are more than we know of. I mean... If they truly went bush then we wouldn't know, right?
But then I thought that I suppose they profit from society, still. I mean... They were fed and clothed as infants. And someone taught them a language... So I suppose we are all dependent on the products of society in those ways. And when you go off you take a bunch of stuff with you rather than inventing it in your lifetime. Swiss army knives, at the very least. Probably hooks. Knowledge of foraging and hunting... And stuff...
Anyway...
Frank said that there wouldn't be any point co-operating if the product wasn't better than what you could do by yourself.
And of course: It's obvious. Not entirely sure why I thought anyone was denying it.
It depends on your ENVIRONMENT - of course. Hanging out in a group of 6 future 'inter-professional health professionals' and taking 20 minutes to put 5 labels on a basic cell makes me feel un-cooperative. Mildly psychopathic. Whereas when it comes to my thesis... I'm feeling strangely co-operative when it comes to that... Not with those same people (still feeling un-co-operative) but with a certain other group of people... I feel co-operative, indeed. And if anything... Like I'm actually asking them to carry me a lot of the time :-( Which is why I feel un-cooperative again and run and hide...
:-(
(which is of course why THEY are / were paid to teach ME)
He said more but I forget...
Stuff about group selection. That finally made sense to me. What it was supposed to be... WHY people don't like the idea.
There are 'fitness traps'. Because of individual competition certain traits are selected... And then because of the way things evolve the whole group (and the individuals in the group) end up worse off. For example: peahens prefer peacocks with huge tails. The peacocks with the hugest tails get more mating opportunitites with 'higher quality' peahens (don't even get me started on 'higher quality'). So over time the peacocks tails get huger and huger... And all the peacocks are worse off because they all have freaking huge tails which just screams EAT ME to all their predators.
Maybe... Foot binding. (Marital advantage to those few who adopt it, everyone adopts it and everyone bears the cost and no-one gets advantage. But still too costly to defect). Female circumscision. These examples are controversial.
But the idea of group selection is the converse - a trait that is good for the group evolves even though it is costly to individuals. And the idea is... that can't happen. Because the unit of selection is the individual - not the group.
Unless you want to do something funky with between-group competition. (Because individual / parts of the individual / groups of the individuals - are just relative places on a hierarchical scale of parts-wholes surely... perhaps... Tell me a funky story about high fidelity inheritance)
aargh.
I can't function in this present environment I've found myself in. And... I never really could.
Now... I'm really not terribly sure about this... But thinking... Thinking... There are different child raising strategies... When child mortality is high it makes sense to have lots of children. I think that is the thought. And when child mortality is lower... Anyway... Sigh. Most people are finding it hard to find a job these days. It isn't just the economy... Or maybe it is, I don't know anything about economics. But older people aren't 'old' like they used to be. They are still effectively doing their jobs. We can't make them retire - because they are healthy and functioning highly at their jobs. But so there are less jobs for younger people. There are... Less jobs. And more kids. Every kid and their 13 brothers and sisters wants a job.
So what you need now to get an entry level position is much higher than it used to be. Now you need a degree in teaching... Once upon a time you went to teachers college and were paid to be an apprentice teacher for 3 years and you did a lot of that in schools and you did some stuff at the college. Things like being a kitchen hand... You now need a degree for. Farm hand. It means the people who get those jobs are a few years older and they have a few 'placement' experiences as part of their education. They have also paid thousands of dollars to do their 3 years at tech or uni (it is called these days) which is what is required for an entry level minimum wage position washing dishes.
hmm...
What you need to invest is more than it used to be. The mushroom child raising strategy isn't as effective as ... Investing everything you have in just the one. The latter is risky... Death... But mortality is low these days... Maybe they'll get a job before you retire hahahahahhahahahaha.
I don't cope well in environments where people are... Where people were raised by their peers. Their siblings. If you wanted food... You needed to be the cutest or most gregarious or whatever so that someone gave you special treatment. Survival of the fittest that way. Like the birds... Feeding the loudest crier. So they all cry loudly and it doesn't signal need anymore. You can't defect and survive. You can't.
What is wrong with me is what is right with me. In SOME contexts.
Apparently: Person - environment mis-match is NOT sufficient for mental disorder. Conflicts between the individual and society is NOT grounds for mental disorder UNLESS:
the behavior is due to DYSFUNCTION WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL.
this is because psychiatry is about changing the INDIVIDUAL and not SOCIETY. not the ENVIRONMENT.
I think psychiatry is (for a large part) a mechanism of social control. That can... Sometimes be used for good. Doctors... Not just psychiatrists... But Doctors more generally get something along the lines of... Conscientious objection. Discretionary empathy. With political clout. For instance... The power to get young guys sent home from war as unfit to serve if they really needed (physically or mentally) to not be there anymore. Flat feet mother f*ck*r. Back pain. Check out the disks on MRI!! Stuff like that. Abortions. Euthenasia. Some kind of compassionate discretion. It is scary who has power and how they use power. But It is good that there is this additional compassionate mechanism.
Like the doc who is supporting me in saying that medically I am not able to seek or take up work right now.
Because my overseas program of study isn't recognized... And so on... So 'health' is kind of my last shot...
I'm not anti-social. Opposed to group work. And so on... But... Well... My desire to co-operate / go it alone does in fact vary depending on the nature of the task / my assessment of the ability of the others I'm meant to co-operate with. That is... Normal. Yay me. I'm okay. Of course I am. I'm okay. ANd you'r okay. And of course they are okay too. In their own special way.
The introversion / extroversion thing doesn't work for me because it is too 'pop culture'. I need to be careful with 'meme' (and the idea of evolution of mental disorder) for similar reasons...
High / Low stimulation... Differently reactive nervous systems... maybe I can use that. Biology doesn't seem to have trouble with the idea of behavioral adaptation (e.g., 'headstanding beetle behavior') so why have trouble with the idea of maladaptive behavior (e.g., mental illness)? why is the latter specially dodgey??
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1045365
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20130612/msgs/1048396.html