The top dog

Scanlas The 2nd

The King of Moo wrote: »

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Hahaha, I've neither time nor patience for such affectations. As one!


No less cut throat or schoolyard for all that though.

Absolutely, it can be quite petty and vicious, and not something I really want to get involved with either!

Doc Ruby wrote: »

This is my point though. I think our long relationship with dogs has been a two way street - this is learned behaviour, not built in.

I think pop psychology has a lot to answer for as well as that: the idea that we're not too different from other animals. While that is true in a lot of ways, it gets overstated quite a lot, particularly in terms of male aggression and attempts to attract women, which people tend to over-simplify, saying we're basically just dogs in that regard.

So I do understand when people act in such a way to an extent, and we're all a little bit competitive in some ways, and seek approval at least a little bit.

But when people put on very obvious displays of asserting their dominance, like with handshakes or interrupting people, it just seems to me that the attempts are so obvious that it makes it look like they're not confident in their position at all, so I don't see why they don't do it more subtly.

People have to interrupt people, its the way things work. You interrupt people all the time just like everyone does.

People can ask politely for others to do something for them such as " pass the salt please". Different people in the group will get compliance for varying degrees of requests. The one who gets compliance for
The biggest request is highest status in te group. You yourself would accept differing degrees of requests depending
On who they are your social circle it is.

HalloweenJack

A group having a top dog would suggest the other members are easily led. I don't know many adults like that. Teenagers, sure.

There's a difference between a top dog and the loudest person in the group, which is what I think the OP is getting mixed up with. And this doesn't necessarily mean they are the least socially anxious. Sometimes it can be the opposite, they are craving attention and validation so they talk and talk so people will respond to them.

Scanlas The 2nd

HalloweenJack wrote: »

A group having a top dog would suggest the other members are easily led. I don't know many adults like that. Teenagers, sure.

There's a difference between a top dog and the loudest person in the group, which is what I think the OP is getting mixed up with. And this doesn't necessarily mean they are the least socially anxious. Sometimes it can be the opposite, they are craving attention and validation so they talk and talk so people will respond to them.

When I mentioned the top dog all I meant was the person who is highest status in that group. I'm not talking about the loudest person in the group, I'm talking about the perso who the group respects the most. A group having someone of highest status doesn't mean the others are easily led, it just means one person has more influence over the group than anyone else, the difference in influence from top to bottom could be small. No matter who is in the group, even if you put 10 of the least easily led people on the planet on an island, one will always get more compliance than anyone else from the group. They can ask for bigger favours, even if the difference is small, and get compliance where others would not get compliance.

On a related note, if you dress a guy in an Armani suit and get him to ask 100 people for directions or 20 cent for bus fare he will get a higher compliance rate than a guy dressed in casual clothing because he appears higher status.

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Can't see a whole lot of religion in there to be honest. And of course that was just the first result on google.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I gave a link to an article by a scientist. Admittedly, Pinker has detractors (mostly due to the recent book about violence, which people found a bit too speculative), so perhaps he's not the best person to base an argument on. I'd just like to know if there are scientists who support the claim that nurture predominates over nature by 50:1, or if those figures are just based a hunch.

Doc Ruby

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I gave a link to an article by a scientist. Admittedly, Pinker has detractors (mostly due to the recent book about violence, which people found a bit too speculative), so perhaps he's not the best person to base an argument on.

Pinker's no more of a scientist than my pet pomeranian. He's a notorious self publicist who makes a good living pandering to the deeply self involved. The reviewer didn't cut him to ribbons on any grounds but factual ones.

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

I'd just like to know if there are scientists who support the claim that nurture predominates over nature by 50:1, or if those figures are just based a hunch.

Well it may not be as extreme as that, but its not far off it. Nature versus nurture is rife with studies on mice and other such irrelevancies. We are ridiculously sophisticated creatures with only the vaguest of grasps on our own natures at this time, comparisons with other animals are entirely pointless. Likewise there is a myopic focus on family to the regular exclusion of wider society, educational, and other factors, which beggars belief; in many cases it looks like researchers reached a conclusion and then did the work to prove it, textbook confirmation bias.

Take something as fundamental as sexuality for example, nobody is seriously arguing there is a "gay gene" any more than there is a gene for "bondage" or "foot fetishes". These are developed behaviours, not inbuilt, and sexuality influences so many other behaviours in complex and subtle ways that it throws the entire nature angle to the wind.

The bottom line is, and this stubborn fact cannot be avoided, if you take a dog and raise it wild, it will retain most of its behaviour if not personality traits.

Do the same for a human being, when compared to the exact same human raised by the best modern civilisation can muster, and you may as well be talking about entirely different species with the behaviour and personality differences. Far from being a hunch, this is apparent fact writ large across the heavens. Its really obvious.

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Pinker's no more of a scientist than my pet pomeranian. He's a notorious self publicist who makes a good living pandering to the deeply self involved. The reviewer didn't cut him to ribbons on any grounds but factual ones.


Well it may not be as extreme as that, but its not far off it. Nature versus nurture is rife with studies on mice and other such irrelevancies. We are ridiculously sophisticated creatures with only the vaguest of grasps on our own natures at this time, comparisons with other animals are entirely pointless. Likewise there is a myopic focus on family to the regular exclusion of wider society, educational, and other factors, which beggars belief; in many cases it looks like researchers reached a conclusion and then did the work to prove it, textbook confirmation bias.

Take something as fundamental as sexuality for example, nobody is seriously arguing there is a "gay gene" any more than there is a gene for "bondage" or "foot fetishes". These are developed behaviours, not inbuilt, and sexuality influences so many other behaviours in complex and subtle ways that it throws the entire nature angle to the wind.

The bottom line is, and this stubborn fact cannot be avoided, if you take a dog and raise it wild, it will retain most of its behaviour if not personality traits.

Do the same for a human being, when compared to the exact same human raised by the best modern civilisation can muster, and you may as well be talking about entirely different species with the behaviour and personality differences. Far from being a hunch, this is apparent fact writ large across the heavens. Its really obvious.

Yes, but. There is no evidence to show that all humans exposed to those conditions would react in the same way. Of course none of them will start spontaneously speaking English, or humming tunes by the Beatles, or baking a calzone for dinner, because they haven't been exposed to any of those cultural elements. They will all have that in common. But they could vary wildly in other ways, in terms of what kind of personality they develop while living in the wild, what kind of relationship they develop with animals etc. That's where genetic factors kick in.

Again, I'd be interested in seeing links to some of these "researchers" you've been reading, so that I can correct my views if they are as far out as you seem to claim.

Doc Ruby

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

But they could vary wildly in other ways, in terms of what kind of personality they develop while living in the wild, what kind of relationship they develop with animals etc. That's where genetic factors kick in.

The differences are just too drastic. Even the products of relatively similar human cultures are very different, to say nothing of what happens when you remove education and culture entirely. Think about it - the two extremes may as well be different species. The learned behaviours of humans, culturally, socially, linguistically, and so on constitute an enormously larger part of our behaviour and personality than any other animal, that's why I said 98%. It might not be quite that high but its not far off it.

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Again, I'd be interested in seeing links to some of these "researchers" you've been reading, so that I can correct my views if they are as far out as you seem to claim.

Look it up on wikipedia, its mice and families as far as the eye can see. I note that charlatan Pinker makes an appearance front and centre in the wiki article too.

paul_mcshane

doesnt matter whether its a football team , a poltical party or a parish hall group , a leader will always emerge from the pack , it is simply the way of things

its mostly leftys - social engineers who despise tradition and human nature itself who deny such realitys , they are usually busy deconstructing people and attempting to rebuild them according to their own genderless - classless ideals , this ironically makes them top dogs in their own right in that they insist on running the show and dictating things

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The differences are just too drastic. Even the products of relatively similar human cultures are very different, to say nothing of what happens when you remove education and culture entirely. Think about it - the two extremes may as well be different species. The learned behaviours of humans, culturally, socially, linguistically, and so on constitute an enormously larger part of our behaviour and personality than any other animal, that's why I said 98%. It might not be quite that high but its not far off it.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one doc! I do get what you're saying, but I think there's a whole lot of background stuff, such as emotional responses to crisis, tastes, and various other personality traits that are coded for genetically, and would persist in some way regardless of environment, even if they show up in different ways depending on the context. Thankfully, nobody is allowed to experiment on humans to prove this definitively one way or the other.

Doc Ruby

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one doc! I do get what you're saying, but I think there's a whole lot of background stuff, such as emotional responses to crisis, tastes, and various other personality traits that are coded for genetically, and would persist in some way regardless of environment, even if they show up in different ways depending on the context. Thankfully, nobody is allowed to experiment on humans to prove this definitively one way or the other.

But sure even the two you mention are learned behaviours. Paramedics are trained to respond to emergencies, and there is the phrase "an acquired taste".

You're right we won't solve this or the answers to the meaning of life here on boards, but to my mind its pretty conclusively massively in favour of environment rather than genetics.

Earthhorse

Some people seem to be regarding the "top dog", alpha male or what have you as some sort of obnoxious overlord, tyrannically dominating the group. Of course, some of the examples given in the thread don't help. If you don't see a figure like this in your group it's becuase you aren't hanging out with psychopaths.

But the idea that there aren't people with more influence, almost dominant influence (but not used to dominate per se), in a contiguous group of friends (i.e. a group of friends who socialise as a group regularly) is, to me, naive. These people don't go around "telling everyone what to do" but their opinion does carry more weight in the group than others in the group.

For example, I'm not the alpha in my main group of friends, so if I suggest going for a weekend away what might happen is a few people subscribe to the idea. If the alpha jumps on board enthusiastically you might suddenly see a sharp increase in the uptake of the idea. If the alpha suggests it initially, there will be no need to garner such support, the support will be there automatically. The same thing can happen with smaller suggestions like meeting for pints or simply in the course of debate and conversation.

There are times when I've spoken quite vocally in favour of a particular viewpoint or belief only to have it ignored unless the alpha "gives their approval". I delibaretly use that phrase because it will get people's heckles up; what I really mean is "unless the alpha agrees". At that point, people in the group will be more likely to reflect because his (or her) opinion simply carries more weight with them than mine does.

It's important to remember; this is not the case for every interaction or every member of the group. Rather, it is a general trend over time in the group. Most of the time, your suggestions will be taken on board regardless of your position in the group because, as others have pointed out, we are adults. It is only at times, perhaps when trying to get group consensus on a big decision (weekend away) or controversial topic (abortion) that some in the group will lean more readily toward the alphas.

It is also important to realise that there will almost always be independent thinkers in the group who don't care about this kind of thing and that within groups there are sub groups too. If you haven't noticed anything of this sort in your own group of friends I encourage you to look again; you may well be hanging out with adults, but they are almost certainly not adult humans.

Wibbs

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Equality legislation and human rights are human attempts to limit the power of or 'house train', if you will, top dogs.

Personally I would feel that much of the course of modern humans history is down to precisely this house training. That Homo Sapiens is a self domesticated version of humans that went before. That Neandertals say were like wild dogs/wolves and we're like domestic dogs. Even in a physical sense. Behaviours like top dog stuff occurs in domesticated dogs, it's not nearly to the degree with wolves who would be more full on in this regard*.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

No, its not. Take a person raised by wild animals and compare them to a person raised by the finest minds on earth and look at the differences in behaviour. Its more like 98% nurture, 2% nature. We are incomparable to any other creature on earth.

That we are in so many ways. We're most certainly a new form of animal. If nothing else because of our huge adaptability. This includes social adaptability. You see this when we compare ourselves to our fellow primates. Some operate harems, some are monogamous. Humans can do both and make both work for the environment they find themselves in. We can live in tiny family groups or in groups of many millions. There's no single "human nature" when compared to other animals. We're very flexible.

flutterflye wrote: »

Any psych or sociology lecturer I've ever had, plus any contemporary studies I've ever read, dispute that completely.
They all agree that it's about 50/50.
I actually can't believe I'm having to defend this!
It is basic knowledge, just like evolution!

50/50 is a little too pat an answer for me. I'd rather consider that the tools of flexibility our evolution and genetics gives us allow nurture to pick and choose those tools it requires for the purpose at hand. In that case nurture is the chooser, which does makes nurture in many respects the driver of humans.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Yes, because academia is a politics-free zone. :pac:

Yea true. It's also remarkably prone to "fashions".

Here's my thinking on it. Its about dogs. A dog now, that's a 50-50 prospect. A dog will act like any other dog, storing food, forming packs, turning round in circles before settling down to sleep, choosing an alpha leader, its a fairly simple creature beyond what you train into it, which is the other half of the picture.

I'd say taking my previous argument, that a dog has fewer tools of flexibility that nurture can choose.

I reckon for a long time people have been looking at dogs and trying to overlay that behaviour on other people. The facts don't bear this out however.

True. The alpha notion tends to springboard from that. Hell it doesn't even work with dogs as the previously deeply held belief of pack behaviour in wolves shows. Wolves "packs" are essentially family units. How a wolf becomes an "alpha" is by leaving the family and setting up it's own. Dogs are different in that they remain juveniles in mind for life so never "leave" so this drive is significantly weaker in them. One of the biggest things domestication does is select for juvenile behavior in the adult. I'd argue this has happened and is happening still with modern humans.

I never said nature was not a factor, but its a lot less of a factor than 50-50. I've never encountered any studies indicating twins live identical lives, can you provide a link? And non adopted siblings are very often completely unalike too!

Actually separated identical twins do tend to follow similar patterns of behaviour. Sometimes to a remarkable degree. Again I would suggest that because they're raised in relatively similar environments(same country, same language etc), their nurture chooses the tools to suit. I would suspect if the same identical twins were raised in radically different environments their nurtures would look for different solutions from their genetic box of tricks.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Take something as fundamental as sexuality for example, nobody is seriously arguing there is a "gay gene" any more than there is a gene for "bondage" or "foot fetishes".

Actually the gay gene may well exist, or at least a set of genes present that are more likely to lead to a gay adult. Any of the studies I've read have been on gay men so it may be different for gay women and bisexuals(it seems to be in women). Gay men in brain scans tend to show some differences in areas of the brain compared to straight men. Their brains look more "feminised" That would be genetically driven. I'm quite sure other forces would be at play EG hormone exposure in the womb, even having older brothers etc, but there would be a large genetic component in play. It also seems to "run in families".

These are developed behaviours, not inbuilt, and sexuality influences so many other behaviours in complex and subtle ways that it throws the entire nature angle to the wind.

As that last link points out it's not that black and white in the case of homosexuality. Developed behaviours are likely a small enough influence overall.

The bottom line is, and this stubborn fact cannot be avoided, if you take a dog and raise it wild, it will retain most of its behaviour if not personality traits.

I would agree with this to some degree. An unsocialised "wild' dog is a very different beast to one that's not, however it would retain most of the domestication potential. Even in the case of wolves with the wild genetics some people have in fact trained them to some degree. It was quite the popular thing to do in 19th century Europe(and before. A couple of Roman emperors had pet wolves). A freind of the originator of the German shepherd breed had one living with his family in gentile German suburbia. It wouldn't be a black labrador and I'd not advise someone try it in the outskirts of Galway today, but the animal has just about enough of the genetic tools to make nurture work(but not as much as an actual dog). Obviously as we domesticated them in the first place. The only apex predator we ever managed to.


*while the alpha wolf theory has been largely debunked wolves are still more extreme in submissive and/or dominance behaviours than dogs. Much less leeway.

flutterflye

Wibbs wrote: »

50/50 is a little too pat an answer for me. I'd rather consider that the tools of flexibility our evolution and genetics gives us allow nurture to pick and choose those tools it requires for the purpose at hand. In that case nurture is the chooser, which does makes nurture in many respects the driver of humans.

I only said "about 50/50", I never once insinuated that is IS 50/50.

paul_mcshane

Earthhorse wrote: »

Some people seem to be regarding the "top dog", alpha male or what have you as some sort of obnoxious overlord, tyrannically dominating the group. Of course, some of the examples given in the thread don't help. If you don't see a figure like this in your group it's becuase you aren't hanging out with psychopaths.

But the idea that there aren't people with more influence, almost dominant influence (but not used to dominate per se), in a contiguous group of friends (i.e. a group of friends who socialise as a group regularly) is, to me, naive. These people don't go around "telling everyone what to do" but their opinion does carry more weight in the group than others in the group.

For example, I'm not the alpha in my main group of friends, so if I suggest going for a weekend away what might happen is a few people subscribe to the idea. If the alpha jumps on board enthusiastically you might suddenly see a sharp increase in the uptake of the idea. If the alpha suggests it initially, there will be no need to garner such support, the support will be there automatically. The same thing can happen with smaller suggestions like meeting for pints or simply in the course of debate and conversation.

There are times when I've spoken quite vocally in favour of a particular viewpoint or belief only to have it ignored unless the alpha "gives their approval". I delibaretly use that phrase because it will get people's heckles up; what I really mean is "unless the alpha agrees". At that point, people in the group will be more likely to reflect because his (or her) opinion simply carries more weight with them than mine does.

It's important to remember; this is not the case for every interaction or every member of the group. Rather, it is a general trend over time in the group. Most of the time, your suggestions will be taken on board regardless of your position in the group because, as others have pointed out, we are adults. It is only at times, perhaps when trying to get group consensus on a big decision (weekend away) or controversial topic (abortion) that some in the group will lean more readily toward the alphas.

It is also important to realise that there will almost always be independent thinkers in the group who don't care about this kind of thing and that within groups there are sub groups too. If you haven't noticed anything of this sort in your own group of friends I encourage you to look again; you may well be hanging out with adults, but they are almost certainly not adult humans.

some people are natural leaders , most people perfer to follow , you need both

chuck stone claimed earlier that people need to be house trained , a sure sign of a lefty out to re-educate others

Wibbs

flutterflye wrote: »

I only said "about 50/50", I never once insinuated that is IS 50/50.

I still feel it's too convenient an answer.

On topic, I would say because of our extreme flexibility we can have top dog environments and non top dog environments. We adapt to whatever environment we're. EG in a very hierarchical work environment we adapt and act accordingly, but those same workers at home or in their social groups can act very differently and hierarchical positions may change or be barely there at all.

This very thread an example of this in some ways. One group are sure top dogs exist and are in every social interaction, whereas others deny this, or see that it exists, but choose social environments that have little or none of this hierarchical jostling.

flutterflye

Wibbs wrote: »

I still feel it's too convenient an answer.

It is a short answer to something that would take forever to type out if you went into any depth!
It's the closest to the truth that you can say in a matter of words.
I fully agree with what you said before though - that you adapt to your environment, and nature may come more into play than nurture or v/v, depending on circumstances etc...

Wibbs wrote: »

On topic, I would say because of our extreme flexibility we can have top dog environments and non top dog environments. We adapt to whatever environment we're. EG in a very hierarchical work environment we adapt and act accordingly, but those same workers at home or in their social groups can act very differently and hierarchical positions may change or be barely there at all.

This very thread an example of this in some ways. One group are sure top dogs exist and are in every social interaction, whereas others deny this, or see that it exists, but choose social environments that have little or none of this hierarchical jostling.

I already said pretty much the same thing.
Less eloquently maybe though!

Greentopia

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't think alot of people here are actually understanding the op at all!
It is a societal fact!
It happens everywhere, in every group.
There is always a 'top dog' leader type person.
It is not a bad thing - it is just the way it is!

So if you were not a dominant individual you'd have no problem if someone called you an "under dog" then yes?

flutterflye

Greentopia wrote: »

So if you were not a dominant individual you'd have no problem if someone called you an "under dog" then yes?

I don't know how to answer that!
I would have NO problem being called that YES?
Do I answer yes or no?!

Anyway, in some circles I'd be dominant, in others, not so much - just like most people.
Therefore, in certain situations, I would be an underdog, yes.

What is your point?
Is there one?

Greentopia

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't care about gravity but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect me. Status in a group exists and I think that would be regarded as fact by most psychologists. Put any group of people together on an Island and you'll see similar patterns of status taking place. There'll always be some with more influence over the group than others.

It depends what kind of status we're talking about I guess. Ascribed or achieved. Sorry if that has been covered already, I haven't read all posts.
Obviously we have little control over the status we are ascribed at birth in relation to our gender, race, family, etc.

If I was together on an island with other people there may very well be those who have influence over others but it doesn't follow that those with independence of mind and character would follow just because someone had a real or perceived higher status. And I think in that situation who has survival and co-operation skills would be much more the relevant issue.
I would naturally defer to those with the skills I don't possess, and vice versa. That's just being practical. If you wish to call that status or hierarchy within a group fine. It's not how I would parse it.

Greentopia

Domo230 wrote: »

Ah the Alpha male. everyone wants to be one, few know how.

Except those of us who don't I genuinely have no wish to be an Alpha female or to take any leadership role in a group. Nor am I a blind follower. I would describe myself as an independent thinker. The idea of following others or being coerced into acting or thinking in ways contrary to my inclinations or desires just because someone is "top dog" is anathema to me.

mikemac1

Ugh, reminds me of my graduate days

And attending assesment centres and having a discussion on some stupid topic

You are adrift at sea and you need ten items out of this list of twenty

Who is the leader
Who is the organizer
Who can argue a point
Who doesn't give a fook

And there's one, there was always one who thinks shouting over everyone gets them noticed and gets them respect.
It's the opposite!

Games, stupid games developed by clowns in HR
HR realy is the home of failed middle managers

paul_mcshane

Greentopia wrote: »

Except those of us who don't I genuinely have no wish to be an Alpha female or to take any leadership role in a group. Nor am I a blind follower. I would describe myself as an independent thinker. The idea of following others or being coerced into acting or thinking in ways contrary to my inclinations or desires just because someone is "top dog" is anathema to me.

alpha females are more fierce than alpha males due to it them having to act in opposition to societal norms re_ female roles , female personalitys etc

think margaret thatcher , germaine greer , that one with the english accent on dragons den , nora casey

paul_mcshane

mikemac1 wrote: »

Ugh, reminds me of my graduate days

And attending assesment centres and having a discussion on some stupid topic

You are adrift at sea and you need ten items out of this list of twenty

Who is the leader
Who is the organizer
Who can argue a point
Who doesn't give a fook

And there's one, there was always one who thinks shouting over everyone gets them noticed and gets them respect.
It's the opposite!

Games, stupid games developed by clowns in HR
HR realy is the home of failed middle managers

HR is the home of impotent toothless tigers and professional hand ringers

Scanlas The 2nd

Greentopia wrote: »

Domo230 wrote: »

Ah the Alpha male. everyone wants to be one, few know how.

Except those of us who don't I genuinely have no wish to be an Alpha female or to take any leadership role in a group. Nor am I a blind follower. I would describe myself as an independent thinker. The idea of following others or being coerced into acting or thinking in ways contrary to my inclinations or desires just because someone is "top dog" is anathema to me.

I doubt you would find many people who would describe themselves as dependent thinkers. Everyone in the western world describes themselves as an independent thinker.

Say you are sitting at a table
with one other person 3 foot away from you. If someone asks to pass the salt when it's in your half you will comply, however as you edge it over into the other persons half you become more likely to deny the request, for higher status individuals you will comply further into their half than lower status individuals.

Experiments have proved people dressed in higher status clothing can get people to do more for them than when in lower status clothing. I'll try find links.

Another thing to look out for, notice how in any group of friends, the lower status individuals get ignored when asking questions or cutting into conversation more than higher status individuals. This isn't out of malice on behalf of the group, their brain is just more focused on the higher status individuals without them realising it. It's actually weird when you notice it how people just blatantly ignore questions from the lower status of the group. And you do it too, everyone does. Out brains are wired to focus on value or threats, people with high status our assumed to have value so we listen when they speak.

Greentopia

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't know how to answer that!
I would have NO problem being called that YES?
Do I answer yes or no?!

Anyway, in some circles I'd be dominant, in others, not so much - just like most people.
Therefore, in certain situations, I would be an underdog, yes.

What is your point?
Is there one?

If you believe being a 'top dog' kind of person is not a bad thing, as you stated, that's it's simply a fact of nature, then my question was simply if you would have no problem in someone calling you an 'under dog' as that's equally a fact of nature according to your position and should by implication be equally unproblematic to you if someone assigned that label to you.

But you state that in certain situations you would be an underdog so I guess you've answered the question.

The word underdog denotes someone of little status in society or someone at a disadvantage, not just those of a lesser status than the 'top dog'.
Not something most people would want to be labelled as I would imagine.

I guess I would class that as ascribed social stratification rather than status and therefore would not agree that it's not a bad thing to call someone either top or under dog. To me it has too many connotations of superiority and inferiority. That's the essence of my point.

flutterflye

Greentopia wrote: »

If you believe being a 'top dog' kind of person is not a bad thing, as you stated, that's it's simply a fact of nature, then my question was simply if you would have no problem in someone calling you an 'under dog' as that's equally a fact of nature according to your position and should by implication be equally unproblematic to you if someone assigned that label to you.

But you state that in certain situations you would be an underdog so I guess you've answered the question.

The word underdog denotes someone of little status in society or someone at a disadvantage, not just those of a lesser status than the 'top dog'.
Not something most people would want to be labelled as I would imagine.

I guess I would class that as ascribed social stratification rather than status and therefore would not agree that it's not a bad thing to call someone either top or under dog. To me it has too many connotations of superiority and inferiority. That's the essence of my point.

It's not the same as social stratification though.
Social stratification is more something that is universal to a society, whereas what we're talking about here is within all groups - big or small.
The same rules do not apply.
It is not about money, job type, class etc...
It is up to the dynamics of each individual and each group to determine.

People here are getting bogged down with labels and the connotations that are supposedly implied.
We are talking about totally different things!
I just don't know how to get it across!
A few have tried, but it's still not getting through.

Earth horse's post for instance - that explains it.

paul_mcshane

Greentopia wrote: »

If you believe being a 'top dog' kind of person is not a bad thing, as you stated, that's it's simply a fact of nature, then my question was simply if you would have no problem in someone calling you an 'under dog' as that's equally a fact of nature according to your position and should by implication be equally unproblematic to you if someone assigned that label to you.

But you state that in certain situations you would be an underdog so I guess you've answered the question.

The word underdog denotes someone of little status in society or someone at a disadvantage, not just those of a lesser status than the 'top dog'.
Not something most people would want to be labelled as I would imagine.

I guess I would class that as ascribed social stratification rather than status and therefore would not agree that it's not a bad thing to call someone either top or under dog. To me it has too many connotations of superiority and inferiority. That's the essence of my point.

ive no problem in admitting that i was once a top dog alpha male type A personality and that i no longer am one of those people , if that makes me an underdog , then thats how it is

Earthhorse

Greentopia wrote: »

The word underdog denotes someone of little status in society or someone at a disadvantage, not just those of a lesser status than the 'top dog'.
Not something most people would want to be labelled as I would imagine.

I guess I would class that as ascribed social stratification rather than status and therefore would not agree that it's not a bad thing to call someone either top or under dog. To me it has too many connotations of superiority and inferiority. That's the essence of my point.

Underdog is usually used to describe the non favourite in a competitive situation (sport, war, an election etc.). It's not really the right term to use for this at all, as social interactions are not competitive per se (we are, in a way, competing for the group's attention). Leader and follower might be a better term as follower doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. It doesn't really matter though, these are just labels to describe a phenomenom. You'll never get the perfect label. It's a bit of a pedantic point, IMO.

Greentopia

paul_mcshane wrote: »

alpha females are more fierce than alpha males due to it them having to act in opposition to societal norms re_ female roles , female personalitys etc

think margaret thatcher , germaine greer , that one with the english accent on dragons den , nora casey

Being an assertive, determined and ambitious female in business or politics does not equate to being 'fierce'.

Being female in those areas may well involve having to fight against negative gender stereotypes but most successful women in those areas are so because of their talents and their ambition to succeed, not because they're more fierce than their male counterparts.

Why use a negative descriptor as 'fierce'?

Scanlas The 2nd

I think some people have it in their head that the highest status in the group has to have a particular bossy cocky loud sort of personality, that's missin the point. The highest status person is simply the one with most influence in that group. In another group it could be a different person, they could have a wide range of personalities and be really nice people or obnoxious people, it doesn't matter once they have most influence.

Chuck Stone

paul_mcshane wrote: »

chuck stone claimed earlier that people need to be house trained

I said that we have come together and attempted to limit the power of 'top dogs' by human mechanisms like the separation of powers, human rights and equality legislation.

a sure sign of a lefty out to re-educate others

What?

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

One of the biggest things domestication does is select for juvenile behavior in the adult. I'd argue this has happened and is happening still with modern humans.

Depends what one would characterise as juvenile behaviour, really.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually the gay gene may well exist, or at least a set of genes present that are more likely to lead to a gay adult. Any of the studies I've read have been on gay men so it may be different for gay women and bisexuals(it seems to be in women). Gay men in brain scans tend to show some differences in areas of the brain compared to straight men. Their brains look more "feminised" That would be genetically driven. I'm quite sure other forces would be at play EG hormone exposure in the womb, even having older brothers etc, but there would be a large genetic component in play. It also seems to "run in families". As that last link points out it's not that black and white in the case of homosexuality. Developed behaviours are likely a small enough influence overall.

The brain thing originated in a problematic study done by Simon LeVay, who later himself said "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain".

Families, twins etc, well

In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend. Byne and Parsons noted:

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates. King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins. The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals. The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992). Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ [monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230). They went on to observe: “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar for MZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard” (p. 230, emp. added).

Another factor that may have had a drastic affect on the results of this study (and other similar studies) centers on methodology. Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of homosexuals. Instead, the subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual publications. This method can be deemed questionable because it is highly dependent on the readership of those publications and on the motives of those who respond. Thus, it may lead to skewed results—for example, inflated rates of concordance in identical twins owing to preferential participation (see Baron, 1993). Hubbard and Wald observed:

The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. If being a fraternal twin exerts an environmental influence, it does not seem surprising that this should be even truer for identical twins, who the world thinks of as “the same” and treats accordingly, and who often share those feelings of sameness (1997, p. 97).

In summarizing their findings, Byne and Parsons stated: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking” (50:228). Commenting on Bailey and Pillard’s report, researchers Billings and Beckwith wrote:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment (1993, p. 60).

The difficulty with such studies is they tend to be highly politicised one way or the other, not to mention suffering from selection and confirmation bias (similar to studies on the "benefits" of circumcision, US based studies reported many benefits, European ones no real benefits and many disadvantages, naturally US researchers were far more likely to be circumcised) but to my knowledge there has not been any gay gene discovered.

The wikipedia article on the subject is a great example of what I'm talking about, its a wild and wacky catalogue of finger length differences, limb proportion differences, discredited or non repeated studies, various organs swollen or shrunken, verbal fluency, and all manner of related bullshit.

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree with this to some degree. An unsocialised "wild' dog is a very different beast to one that's not, however it would retain most of the domestication potential.

What I mean is it retains the behaviours which weren't trained into it. For example, I didn't train my dog to hide its food, but it still does. This is a purely instinctive action. Humans have no such actions, that we are aware of anyway.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Depends what one would characterise as juvenile behaviour, really.

Scientifically. Behavioral neotony with a side order of physical. Domesticated animals retain more physical features of juveniles. So dogs tend to look facially more noble and less fierce than wolves for example. Dogs have flatter more baby faced skulls, bigger, rounder eyes, smaller teeth. Wolves have much more robust skulls with longer muzzles, less of a forehead, larger dentition, smaller more angular eyes. Young wolves on the other hand are cute as fook and hard enough to tell apart from say a scruffy alsation, but that changes. Behavioral differences would include things like acceptance of strangers. Pups accept strangers pretty easily as do dogs. Wolf cubs will, but adults won't to nearly the same degree if at all. Juveniles are also more curious, less cautious by nature than adult animals. Play behaviour's another. Dogs play throughout life, wolves much less so. They "grow up". Even vocalisations. Wolf cubs will yap/bark, but wolf adults rarely if ever do.

Humans seem to show the physical diffs compared to our predecessors. We look like more juvenile, with our flat faces, smaller noses, generally delicate features. I suspect behaviorally there would be diffs too. IE a Neandertal 10 year old and a Sapiens 10 year old would be pretty similar, but after puberty the former would be more full on, less curious, less playful, more cautious. Chances are we'll never know which is a pity.

The brain thing originated in a problematic study done by Simon LeVay, who later himself said "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain".

His is not the only study to find such brain differences(between genders as well as how these diffs can be observed in some "gay brains"). As I said it's not going to be a "gay gene" that's on or off. It's going to be many genes, that increase to one degree or other the potential that in utero or environment pressure will end up working on. The fact is that numerous studies have shown that if one identical twin is gay the chances the other will be is very high. IT's not 100% so obviously there are environmental pressures, but it's not anything close to 0% either, not even close to non fraternal twins or other siblings.

Families, twins etc, well
The difficulty with such studies is they tend to be highly politicised one way or the other, not to mention suffering from selection and confirmation bias (similar to studies on the "benefits" of circumcision, US based studies reported many benefits, European ones no real benefits and many disadvantages, naturally US researchers were far more likely to be circumcised) but to my knowledge there has not been any gay gene discovered.

Oh I agree, there can be confirmation bias all over the place. The circumcision one a bloody good example.

What I mean is it retains the behaviours which weren't trained into it. For example, I didn't train my dog to hide its food, but it still does. This is a purely instinctive action. Humans have no such actions, that we are aware of anyway.

We do have a couple, but the size of our brain tends to interrupt that much more than in other animals. Things like I dunno, if one person yawns in a group others will, if one person yacks others tend to feel queasy or even yack themselves. Apparently an instinctive thing that if one person appears poisoned it's a good instinct for the rest to hurl chunks in sympathy. Which would make sense as if one gets a dose of the liquid sitdowns the same effect isn't seen. Presumably because if it's coming out the other end you're already poisoned ted. Other ones like mating strategies. Even though cultures the world over vary in what they find sexually attractive one trigger found in every culture is clear skin. Ditto for symmetry in males and more juvenile facial characteristics in females, also hip waist ratio in the latter. All instinctive things. Of course culture will have the largest effect, because it trumps our instincts a magnitude more than any other animal, but some instincts are still there.

Shryke

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Stupid is someone unwilling or unable to take on new facts and information and adapt themselves to the situation. Not pointing any fingers at your post or anything, but...

A child raised in adverse conditions will be a very different person to one raised in ideal conditions. This is not up for dispute, although it may not suit some who feel more comfortable viewing people as meat machines of some sort.

98% nurture, 2% nature.

I agree they will be very different people. And adverse conditions is one thing but wild animals is a completely different story and derangement is the only word for it. I've read a good bit on the subject before, I know what I'm talking about and I'm here to inform you that you're speaking with ineptitude.
You're naturally willing and able to take on this info. :rolleyes:

I don't know where you're going with the last bit of your post. It sounds like you have some issues with science/reality. You're not some spirit trapped in a body. You are your body, your body is built from your genetic code which determines how you function and operate. We do not suddenly evolve on the fly when thrown into detrimental conditions.

Thanks for not pointing the finger at me. Maybe take a look at yourself though. You haven't addressed what I've said, only tried to talk around it in a vague and incomprehensible manner.
You're not arguing with me by the way, you're arguing with genuine science and biology. More fool you.
It's great that you're so sure of your percentages too. I'm very impressed.
Pure hyperbole naturally.

And I predict you're not going to just take back what you said.

Greentopia

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I doubt you would find many people who would describe themselves as dependent thinkers. Everyone in the western world describes themselves as an independent thinker.

Believing they are so and being so are often two different things. Some people who believe they are independent thinkers clearly are not.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Say you are sitting at a table
with one other person 3 foot away from you. If someone asks to pass the salt when it's in your half you will comply, however as you edge it over into the other persons half you become more likely to deny the request, for higher status individuals you will comply further into their half than lower status individuals.

Absolutely not. If someone asks to pass the salt no matter where they sit at the table I will pass it down to them because it's the polite thing to do! Since when has it become normal social etiquette and good table manners to ever deny someone a polite request like that?? I find the idea of denying such a request quite frankly completely bizarre and would go against everything I was taught about civility and good manners by my parents! it matters not a whit to me what 'status' individuals have in such a situation.

But then I was raised to have good manners (good table manners and dining etiquette in particular were important in my household) and to treat everyone as equals. Also I favour a co-operative and non-hierarchical model of society rather than a competitive and stratified one so my views on status would undoubtedly be influenced by that.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Experiments have proved people dressed in higher status clothing can get people to do more for them than when in lower status clothing. I'll try find links.

Interesting, I'd like to see that link. Depends what you mean by higher status clothing though-suits?- and in what situations these experiments were carried out.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Another thing to look out for, notice how in any group of friends, the lower status individuals get ignored when asking questions or cutting into conversation more than higher status individuals. This isn't out of malice on behalf of the group, their brain is just more focused on the higher status individuals without them realising it. It's actually weird when you notice it how people just blatantly ignore questions from the lower status of the group. And you do it too, everyone does. Out brains are wired to focus on value or threats, people with high status our assumed to have value so we listen when they speak.

Again for me this is a matter of politeness. I would find it very rude to ignore someone/anyone! who was asking a question or making conversation with me, or indeed anyone in a group who would behave like that. I most assuredly do not ever ignore anyone who engages me in polite civil conversation. Status or hierarchy simply doesn't enter the equation for me. I listen to anyone with something interesting or of merit to say regardless of what status they hold. I like to take as a starting point that everyone has something to contribute no matter what their background or status before I assess them or make a judgement on them.

If I was in a group of people and someone was being ignored for no good reason e.g. they weren't being an asshole or an insufferable bore, then it would raise questions in my mind about why I would want the continue being friends with someone in a group who would treat a person so rudely and with so little consideration.

Do you have any credible scholarly sources to back up your claim that this is something we all do unconsciously and that it's hard wired into our brains to favour 'high status' individuals who have more 'value' and ignore 'lower status' individuals? I'd be interested in reading that

flutterflye

Greentopia wrote: »

Do you have any credible scholarly sources to back up your claim that this is something we all do unconsciously and that it's hard wired into our brains to favour 'high status' individuals who have more 'value' and ignore 'lower status' individuals? I'd be interested in reading that

I know you weren't addressing me there, but I just had a look through my college notes there because it is really annoying me that I can't articulate what I want to say on this topic.
But I appear to have labeled all my notes by number, and there's tons of them!
So there is no chance I'll find what I want tonight

BazDel

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Another thing to look out for, notice how in any group of friends, the lower status individuals get ignored when asking questions or cutting into conversation more than higher status individuals. This isn't out of malice on behalf of the group, their brain is just more focused on the higher status individuals without them realising it. It's actually weird when you notice it how people just blatantly ignore questions from the lower status of the group. And you do it too, everyone does. Out brains are wired to focus on value or threats, people with high status our assumed to have value so we listen when they speak.

This! Very noticeable when you look for it but not so striking when you don't. I could clearly see this with two different groups of friends. One group my opinion was regarded highly and listened to over others when I voiced it. The other group was the reverse, anything I said was really only taken on board if nobody else wanted to contribute. Also when people are in the company of different people (Mix of the two groups) they are likely to treat you differently, normally better as they are unsure of my standing with the members of the other group.

Greentopia

Earthhorse wrote: »

Underdog is usually used to describe the non favourite in a competitive situation (sport, war, an election etc.). It's not really the right term to use for this at all, as social interactions are not competitive per se (we are, in a way, competing for the group's attention). Leader and follower might be a better term as follower doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. It doesn't really matter though, these are just labels to describe a phenomenom. You'll never get the perfect label. It's a bit of a pedantic point, IMO.

I agree leader and follower might be a more accurate discription. I used underdog as it's the antonym to top dog which was a phrase used to describe high status by the OP. Yes it's usually used in the meaning you suggested-those in a competitive situation, but Merriam has it also defined as a victim of injustice or persecution.

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

IE a Neandertal 10 year old and a Sapiens 10 year old would be pretty similar, but after puberty the former would be more full on, less curious, less playful, more cautious. Chances are we'll never know which is a pity.

I hear that some recent scientific expeditions to Cavan/Leitrim are making progress in this field

Greentopia

flutterflye wrote: »

I know you weren't addressing me there, but I just had a look through my college notes there because it is really annoying me that I can't articulate what I want to say on this topic.
But I appear to have labeled all my notes by number, and there's tons of them!
So there is no chance I'll find what I want tonight

That's ok, I'm sure you'll find it again if you so wish. I'm logging off soon anyway as I'm tired so better to assess such material with fresh eyes some other time anyway.

Scanlas The 2nd

Greentopia, you say you would never deny someone requesting to pass the salt. If someone asked you to pass the salt when it was in arms reach of them but you had to get up and walk over to get it would you not say its beside you.

The point is we would unconsciously give more leeway to the more respected members of the group.


https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/dcummins/www/HomePage/BussChapter.pdf

On page 7 of above it describes how people in an experiment were more likely to punish low status individuals who break the rules.

Doc Ruby

Shryke wrote: »

I agree they will be very different people. And adverse conditions is one thing but wild animals is a completely different story and derangement is the only word for it. I've read a good bit on the subject before, I know what I'm talking about and I'm here to inform you that you're speaking with ineptitude.
You're naturally willing and able to take on this info. :rolleyes:

Ah I didn't realise you were speaking with the authority of all universal knowledge behind you. Sarcasm aside, "I've read a good it about it" is great, but most of us like to get our information from sources other than the tabloids and someone's blog.

The irrefutable point you've missed in your hail of handbags is that is doesn't matter - wild animals or lab experiment, a person without any contact with other people, point of reference, or the bare basics of education will be a completely different creature to one educated by the best. Fixating on "raised by wild animals" is tangential even in AH.

And for gods sake, "speaking with ineptitude" means poor grammar and diction, not you don't know what you're talking about. If you must shoot from the hip at least make sure you're not using a banana.

Shryke wrote: »

I don't know where you're going with the last bit of your post. It sounds like you have some issues with science/reality. You're not some spirit trapped in a body. You are your body, your body is built from your genetic code which determines how you function and operate. We do not suddenly evolve on the fly when thrown into detrimental conditions.

Ah now we get to the actual reason for the hysterics. You're one of these individuals that is deeply invested in the idea of people as meat machines, to the extent that they even deny environmental factors, which by the way flies in the face of actual science. Willpower, morale, even art are all figments of someone else's imagination to you. Wim Hof is your antichrist. I call this an offshoot of the Dawkins phenomenon, a bit like religious zealots who take things way further than was ever intended.

Ironic, really.

Shryke wrote: »

Thanks for not pointing the finger at me. Maybe take a look at yourself though. You haven't addressed what I've said, only tried to talk around it in a vague and incomprehensible manner.
You're not arguing with me by the way, you're arguing with genuine science and biology. More fool you.

All you've said is, as far as I can tell, that people weren't raised by wild animals. I didn't bother to even look it up since it doesn't matter to the point being made. I do enjoy those who wildly cry "science and biology" without a notion of either though.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

If you must shoot from the hip at least make sure you're not using a banana.

Will nick that one for future use.

Ah now we get to the actual reason for the hysterics. You're one of these individuals that is deeply invested in the idea of people as meat machines, to the extent that they even deny environmental factors, which by the way flies in the face of actual science. Willpower, morale, even art are all figments of someone else's imagination to you. Wim Hof is your antichrist. I call this an offshoot of the Dawkins phenomenon, a bit like religious zealots who take things way further than was ever intended.

There's certainly an element of that kinda thinking these days. From pure ghosts in the machine, to just machine. It's also fashion led. So genetics is the answer, or evolutionary psychology. Genetics is the real science de jour of course. Some speak with the almost religious zeal of predestinationists. You are your genes kinda thing.

The notion that we're just another animal with a few extras is another popular one. A bauble on the tree of evolution as Gould would have it. I call bollocks on that one too. We're incredibly unique in all of evolutionary history. It's a backlash agin the judeochristian man as lord over the animals type guff.

Like you say these are great ideas, but taken way too far, and usually to the exclusion of other complimentary or competing ideas. I suppose we've much more specialisation these days too, so people are more railroaded into their specialisation. If all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail type of thing.

The beauty with science is of course that this again will change.

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

There's certainly an element of that kinda thinking these days. From pure ghosts in the machine, to just machine. It's also fashion led. So genetics is the answer, or evolutionary psychology. Genetics is the real science de jour of course. Some speak with the almost religious zeal of predestinationists. You are your genes kinda thing.

I think there's an element of youthful exuberance in it too, one of those things we were all so fervent about when younger, the myopia of inexperience.

Wibbs wrote: »

The notion that we're just another animal with a few extras is another popular one. A bauble on the tree of evolution as Gould would have it. I call bollocks on that one too. We're incredibly unique in all of evolutionary history. It's a backlash agin the judeochristian man as lord over the animals type guff.

Exactly. I ordered Wim Hof's book last week by the way, should be landing any day now, and I'll be posting a review in the S&SS forum whenever I get a chance to look at it. He's a good example of how humans are more than the sum of their parts without entering into the paranormal, highlighting the unbelievable sophistication of the mind, beating not only genetics but apparently thermodynamics too!

Jimmyhologram

Wibbs wrote: »

There's certainly an element of that kinda thinking these days. From pure ghosts in the machine, to just machine. It's also fashion led. So genetics is the answer, or evolutionary psychology. Genetics is the real science de jour of course. Some speak with the almost religious zeal of predestinationists. You are your genes kinda thing.

The notion that we're just another animal with a few extras is another popular one. A bauble on the tree of evolution as Gould would have it. I call bollocks on that one too. We're incredibly unique in all of evolutionary history. It's a backlash agin the judeochristian man as lord over the animals type guff.

I'd agree that there is an extremist element out there, and I would be against that extremism just as I'd by opposed to other extremisms, but I don't think it's extreme at all to counter your point by saying that it actually seems to me that we are not incredibly unique at all.

We are incredibly unique to ourselves, and rightly so. But we're not that unique, objectively speaking, in my opinion, and I doubt we'd seem all that unique from an alien perspective. The list of things that we supposedly do that other animals can't do has grown shorter by the year. Animals build stuff, experience emotions, bond, etc.

My preferred outcome to this is not that we start thinking of ourselves as pieces of meat, but maybe that we reconsider our treatment of animals. But that's another story.

Shryke

Doc Ruby wrote: »

No, its not. Take a person raised by wild animals and compare them to a person raised by the finest minds on earth and look at the differences in behaviour. Its more like 98% nurture, 2% nature. We are incomparable to any other creature on earth.

Original statement..

Doc Ruby;78957741]Ah I didn't realise you were speaking with the authority of all universal knowledge behind you. Sarcasm aside, "I've read a good it about it" is great, but most of us like to get our information from sources other than the tabloids and someone's blog.

I don't read tabloids and blogs, that's bad form on your part. I've read real live books and everything.

The irrefutable point you've missed in your hail of handbags is that is doesn't matter - wild animals or lab experiment, a person without any contact with other people, point of reference, or the bare basics of education will be a completely different creature to one educated by the best. Fixating on "raised by wild animals" is tangential even in AH.

It's not tangental. They will be different. What you fail to understand is that that isn't an argument for nurture being a large part of who we are. What it means is that a feral child will be deranged and extremely psychologically disturbed. Children need a certain kind of nurture, at least human ffs, and that's down to nature as is a lot of things.
Derangement occurs if the child is in an environment it wasn't born for. You understand that right?
You don't want to address the issue directly because it doesn't gel with your model as man as some kind of grand entity rather than the animals we are. Intelligent ones but still animals. "Meat machine" is not a phrase I would use so kindly don't try to put it in my mouth.

Ah now we get to the actual reason for the hysterics. You're one of these individuals that is deeply invested in the idea of people as meat machines, to the extent that they even deny environmental factors, which by the way flies in the face of actual science. Willpower, morale, even art...

Ironic, really.

No hysterics here. Perfectly calm thanks. And you're assuming a lot there too. The term "meat machines" again, good man. I don't deny environmental factors. Where did I say that? Environmental factors play an important role in shaping us "meat machines". You still won't escape genetic disposition. We're hard wired for certain things, including social structure. A hermit won't fall down dead but will suffer for a lack of company.

All you've said is, as far as I can tell, that people weren't raised by wild animals. I didn't bother to even look it up since it doesn't matter to the point being made. I do enjoy those who wildly cry "science and biology" without a notion of either though.

I said that most weren't. A few cases are indisputable and very horrible to read about. There haven't been any too recently thank God (in the last few decades), that I've heard of at least. It was a few years back I did this reading.
Didn't bother to look it up? And I have no notion? Were you too consumed by my awful diction?

As predicted you can't just admit you said something silly and address it.

I'll get back to being a notionless, hysterical meat machine. Off down the road to scream science and biology at the top of my lungs while waving tabloids in the air.

Doc Ruby

Shryke wrote: »

Original statement..

How deep does this rabbit hole go? Do you think the point of the comment was "wild animals" or an isolated human being? Why latch onto wild animals since that was really obviously not the point, besides setting up a strawman for you to knock down? I mean everyone else got it, it can't be that hard to grasp.

Shryke wrote: »

I don't read tabloids and blogs, that's bad form on your part. I've read real live books and everything.

If you say so.

Shryke wrote: »

It's not tangental. They will be different. What you fail to understand is that that isn't an argument for nurture being a large part of who we are. What it means is that a feral child will be deranged and extremely psychologically disturbed. Children need a certain kind of nurture, at least human ffs, and that's down to nature as is a lot of things.
Derangement occurs if the child is in an environment it wasn't born for. You understand that right?

And he's off again.

Shryke wrote: »

You don't want to address the issue directly because it doesn't gel with your model as man as some kind of grand entity rather than the animals we are. Intelligent ones but still animals. "Meat machine" is not a phrase I would use so kindly don't try to put it in my mouth.

You extremist Dawkinsians have a lot of work to do to match the fancy logic developed by the religions. We are biologically animals, of course. We've also put men on the moon. Whether you like it or not we are very, very different to any other animal. The puzzle is why you think this disparity means we will treat animals without respect in any way. I'll still care for a man with no legs even if he can't run as fast as me. Speaking personally I wouldn't hurt a fly unless the little fucker was trying to hurt me first.

Shryke wrote: »

No hysterics here. Perfectly calm thanks. And you're assuming a lot there too. The term "meat machines" again, good man. I don't deny environmental factors. Where did I say that? Environmental factors play an important role in shaping us "meat machines". You still won't escape genetic disposition. We're hard wired for certain things, including social structure. A hermit won't fall down dead but will suffer for a lack of company.

So the differences between a completely uneducated and isolated human being without even a language and a say modern university professor are purely cosmetic, you say? I mean since genetics is at the wheel the professor must be only twice as competent in every way according to the 50:50 hypothesis, right? Education, knowledge and environment shape behaviour far more than genes at this stage in our development. This is baldly apparent. Its not even clear whether bare tool use would appear in the former case, and given how long it took anatomically modern humans to create language, communication is right out. In fact, anatomically modern humans have existed long before the use of fire or flint knapping.

Shryke wrote: »

I said that most weren't. A few cases are indisputable and very horrible to read about. There haven't been any too recently thank God (in the last few decades), that I've heard of at least. It was a few years back I did this reading.
Didn't bother to look it up? And I have no notion? Were you too consumed by my awful diction?

As predicted you can't just admit you said something silly and address it.

I've to ask myself is there really any point in continuing, a zealot will change neither his mind nor the topic.

Shryke

It's a zealot I'm speaking with clearly. Your failure to clarify on examples doesn't impress me. You're ranting, giving out labels like they're skittles.
If you wanted to take a moment to understand my position you would see I believe environmental factors matter. Your disregard for the importance of other factors is border line obscene.
Scrabble away to your high ground and keep your fingers in your ears.

Doc Ruby

Shryke wrote: »

It's a zealot I'm speaking with clearly. Your failure to clarify on examples doesn't impress me. You're ranting, giving out labels like they're skittles.

I'm not the one who waded into the discussion with accusations of stupidity, buddy. Maybe next time try a bit less of a confrontational approach.

Shryke

What you said was stupid. End of.
You could have and still could just admit to it being a very poorly thought out statement and we wouldnt be where we are buddy. Its also on topic. It shows your mentality more clearly than any of your other roundabout postings.
You just cant say, " ok that was a bit daft, my bad." That makes me further believe it really is the kind of mentality you have.
Delicate notions Bud. I can see why you wouldnt like to be called on them.