Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[joe1776]

Declaring research that shows "tribalism" is hardwired into our brains "irrelevant" to an idea that global harmony is inevitable doesn’t say much for your depth of thought on the issue."

Would you please quote from your study where the claim "hardwired" appears? I can't find it. I read of learned biases.

Most people would view the idea that global harmony and a permanent end to violence are inevitable as utopian.

Most people would be creating a strawman if they did. The premise that life can be perfect is not part of my argument.

utopian -- utopian principles or beliefs are based on the idea that life can be perfect. This is often used for saying that something is not practical or sensible

As for the second fake strawman, why is global harmony inevitable "because intuition" when many of our intuitions are not conducive to global harmony as they evolved to help us survive in a very different environment?

That's your unproven claim.

We can both agree that cooperation is key to the survival of our species but tribalism (in-group behavior) also involves competition with other groups. I see competition as the chief threat to the survival of our species.You somehow reason that both of these opposites, competition and cooperation, are necessary for survival. That doesn't make sense.

Declaring research that shows "tribalism" is hardwired into our brains "irrelevant" to an idea that global harmony is inevitable doesn’t say much for your depth of thought on the issue.

One of us is misreading. I read nothing in the research you quoted to support the notion that tribalism is "hardwired" intuition. I thought the paper described learned biases.

The unconscious need to feel superior to others probably motivates a ton of bad behavior. This might be what you're calling "intuition."As I explained earlier, group pride, usually mistaken as a virtue, is actually arrogant behavior.

If a member of a Neo-Nazi group realizes that his/her need to feel superior to others is driving them, they can quit the group thus making moral progress. So, the behavior isn't hard-wired and permanent.

 

[Augustus]

Would you please quote from your study where the claim "hardwired" appears? I can't find it. I read of learned biases.

These data definitively show that ‘mere membership’ in minimal social groups is enough to elicit intergroup bias in 5-year-olds, contra Spielman (2000). While we interpret this as evidence against Spielman’s (2000) enculturation view, it is not definitive: It could be that enculturation merely happens earlier, that 5-yr-olds have already come to think of dichotomous groups as templates for competition. However, one of the most striking aspects of our findings is the wide range of biases we observed. Spielman’s (2000) explanation, as well as other explanations that sought primarily to account for resource allocation behavior (Tajfel, 1971/2001; Yamagishi et al., 1999), face some difficulty here. There is no prima facie reason why an understanding of dichotomous groups as likely parties to competition (or generalized expectations of extended ingroup reciprocity) should automatically lead to preference for members of the ingroup, a tendency to predict more positive behaviors for ingroup members, a positive implicit association with the ingroup, and distorted memory for ingroup and outgroup actions. After all, these effects have little to do with reciprocity or conflict per se.

Instead, these data suggest that an adequate characterization of the minimal group effect will need to respect the generality of findings; that is, candidate mechanisms will need to be capable of producing bias across many dependent measures. One speculative possibility that we favor is that the driving force behind the minimal group effect is the general affective positivity that implicit measures tap into. Besides revealing the strongest effects of mere membership in Experiments 1 and 2 and correlating with several of our other measures, implicit attitudes have well-established relations with a range of discriminatory behaviors (Greenwald et al., 2009), and thus could underlie the varied findings reported here and elsewhere. This general positivity towards ingroups could be part of a broader tendency to affiliate with social coalitions, purported to be an adaptive process of evolutionary origin (e.g. Kurzban, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2001).

For a brief intro to Tooby's views see: Coalitional Instincts
Kurzban wrote an interesting book called Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind if you are interested

We're all hypocrites. Why? Hypocrisy is the natural state of the human mind.

Robert Kurzban shows us that the key to understanding our behavioral inconsistencies lies in understanding the mind's design. The human mind consists of many specialized units designed by the process of natural selection. While these modules sometimes work together seamlessly, they don't always, resulting in impossibly contradictory beliefs, vacillations between patience and impulsiveness, violations of our supposed moral principles, and overinflated views of ourselves.

This modular view of the mind undermines deeply held intuitions about ourselves, as well as a range of scientific theories that require a "self" with consistent beliefs and preferences. Modularity suggests that there is no "I." Instead, each of us is a contentious "we"—a collection of discrete but interacting systems whose constant conflicts shape our interactions with one another and our experience of the world.

In clear language, full of wit and rich in examples, Robert Kurzban explains the roots and implications of our inconsistent minds, and why it is perfectly natural to believe that everyone else is a hypocrite.

Most people would be creating a strawman if they did. The premise that life can be perfect is not part of my argument.

Disagreeing with you about what qualifies for a subjective category is not a strawman

We can both agree that cooperation is key to the survival of our species but tribalism (in-group behavior) also involves competition with other groups. I see competition as the chief threat to the survival of our species.You somehow reason that both of these opposites, competition and cooperation, are necessary for survival. That doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense, we evolved to live in small groups. These small groups were frequently in competition with other groups for scarce resources. Watch a documentary about chimps if you don't understand the evolutionary logic.

One of us is misreading. I read nothing in the research you quoted to support the notion that tribalism is "hardwired" intuition. I thought the paper described learned biases.

The unconscious need to feel superior to others probably motivates a ton of bad behavior. This might be what you're calling "intuition."As I explained earlier, group pride, usually mistaken as a virtue, is actually arrogant behavior.

If a member of a Neo-Nazi group realizes that his/her need to feel superior to others is driving them, they can quit the group thus making moral progress. So, the behavior isn't hard-wired and permanent.

You are still confusing ideology for cognitive function. These were 5 year olds assigned to completely arbitrary groups, not ideologues.

Also the ex-Nazi is highly likely to define his new identity in opposition to Nazis. You don't simply leave a group identity, you replace it with a new one (or ones).

 

[joe1776]

...While we interpret this as evidence against Spielman’s (2000) enculturation view, it is not definitive: It could be that enculturation merely happens earlier, that 5-yr-olds have already come to think of dichotomous groups as templates for competition...

When you claimed that ingroup behavior is hardwired did you miss the above which states uncertainty on this point?

Disagreeing with you about what qualifies for a subjective category is not a strawman

Can I assume that you know the difference between a premise and a conclusion in a reasoned argument? Utopian reasoning has the idea that societies can be perfect as a premise. You never read such a premise in my argument therefore calling it "utopian" is a strawman. Global harmony is the conclusion to a reasoned argument based on my evidence-based premise that humanity has been making moral progress.

Of course it makes sense, we evolved to live in small groups. These small groups were frequently in competition with other groups for scarce resources. Watch a documentary about chimps if you don't understand the evolutionary logic.

So, can you offer evidence that human behavior and chimp behavior are alike in all respects? (nope)

Can you explain why cooperation and its opposite competition are BOTH survival necessities? (nope)

Also the ex-Nazi is highly likely to define his new identity in opposition to Nazis. You don't simply leave a group identity, you replace it with a new one (or ones).

I've replaced my group attachments with just one: global citizenship. I'm legally a citizen of the USA but if there's a conflict between my country's policies and the welfare of the global community, I support the global community.

Global citizenship - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

When you claimed that ingroup behavior is hardwired did you miss the above which states uncertainty on this point?

Why would I miss what I specifically highlighted? They are saying 'we can't prove it yet, but the evidence suggests it is not a learned behaviour' they also note the links to the Tooby et al who argue that our coalitional instincts are indeed innate.

Every human—not excepting scientists—bears the whole stamp of the human condition. This includes evolved neural programs specialized for navigating the world of coalitions—teams, not groups. (Although the concept of coalitional instincts has emerged over recent decades, there is no mutually-agreed-upon term for this concept yet.) These programs enable us and induce us to form, maintain, join, support, recognize, defend, defect from, factionalize, exploit, resist, subordinate, distrust, dislike, oppose, and attack coalitions. Coalitions are sets of individuals interpreted by their members and/or by others as sharing a common abstract identity (including propensities to act as a unit, to defend joint interests, and to have shared mental states and other properties of a single human agent, such as status and prerogatives)....

The primary function that drove the evolution of coalitions is the amplification of the power of its members in conflicts with non-members. This function explains a number of otherwise puzzling phenomena. For example, ancestrally, if you had no coalition you were nakedly at the mercy of everyone else, so the instinct to belong to a coalition has urgency, preexisting and superseding any policy-driven basis for membership. This is why group beliefs are free to be so weird.

Can I assume that you know the difference between a premise and a conclusion in a reasoned argument? Utopian reasoning has the idea that societies can be perfect as a premise. You never read such a premise in my argument therefore it's a strawman. Global harmony is the conclusion based on my evidence-based premise that humanity has been making moral progress.

You make the mistake of thinking utopian can only be applied to the whole society rather than one specific aspect. i.e. "It is utopian to believe that drug use can be completely eradicated from society so harm reduction is the only sensible strategy."

Can't be bothered quibbling any more over subjective concepts that have no impact on the substance of the discussion though so think what you like.

 

[Augustus]

So, can you offer evidence that human behavior and chimp behavior are alike in all respects? (nope)

For one who is very keen to call strawman...

Can you explain why cooperation and its opposite competition are BOTH survival necessities? (nope)

Yes, I did so in the text you were quoting.

I've replaced my group attachments with just one: global citizenship. I'm legally a citizen of the USA but if there's a conflict between my country's policies and the welfare of the global community, I support the global community.

Would you be happy if 90% of US tax revenue was spent overseas with all the negative consequences to your life and that of your family and friends?

 

[joe1776]

Yes, I did so in the text you were quoting.

No, you described what you think happened: Of course it makes sense, we evolved to live in small groups. These small groups were frequently in competition with other groups for scarce resources.

Since the world's resources were almost unlimited and populations were very small, it's highly unlikely that tribes went to war over scarce resources very often. It's far more likely that men like Genghis Khan led their tribes to war because they were stronger than their neighbors and bullying was part of their nature.

I can explain the survival advantages of cooperation. It permits specialization, which creates advantages in production of needed-wanted goods. The bigger the cooperative endeavor, the greater the advantages. But I can't think of a single survival advantage for an Adolf Hitler to initiate a competition with Germany's neighbors. If you do, please explain it.

Why would I miss what I specifically highlighted?

I wondered that too.

So, you claimed that "hard-wired" was a fact because you favored one researcher's opinion over others?

You make the mistake of thinking utopian can only be applied to the whole society rather than one specific aspect.

An argument based on evidence can't be utopian. You can't defend your strawman.

Would you be happy if 90% of US tax revenue was spent overseas with all the negative consequences to your life and that of your family and friends?

I wrote: ...but if there's a conflict between my country's policies and the welfare of the global community, I support the global community.

Your bias to find fault with that statement -- which does not imply that I would favor self-sacrifice as a policy -- is obvious.

 

[Augustus]

It's far more likely that men like Genghis Khan led their tribes to war because they were stronger than their neighbors and bullying was part of their nature.

I can explain the survival advantages of cooperation. It permits specialization, which creates advantages in production of needed-wanted goods. The bigger the cooperative endeavor, the greater the advantages. But I can't think of a single survival advantage for an Adolf Hitler to initiate a competition with Germany's neighbors. If you do, please explain it.

Humans appear..... 99.5% of human history passes... Genghis Khan and Hitler appear. You focus on GK and AH.

See the problem with your reasoning?

When humans first appeared 300,000 years ago (or whatever the correct figure is), before we had agriculture, before we had cities and countries and armies, we lived in small groups as hunter gatherers.

We relied on cooperation within the group, but were wary of other who may want to take our food, our shelter, our women or whatever.

Too high a population density would mean a food shortage, so it is completely false to say 'the bigger the cooperative endeavour the bigger the advantage". Group size was limited to that which could be supported by a pre-agrarian system.

In the dry season there may be a shortage of water so if we had a good supply, we would need to defend it from others who would like to take it from us.

I wondered that too.

So, you claimed that "hard-wired" was a fact because you favored one researcher's opinion over others?

"declaring research that shows "tribalism" is hardwired into our brains "irrelevant" to an idea that global harmony is inevitable doesn’t say much for your depth of thought on the issue."

Shows, not 'proves'. Multiple cited authors believe the evidence suggests it is hardwired. Forget the 'gotcha' style bad faith quibbling and focus on the substance please. Global harmony is not built on such attitudes

Adopting the extreme position that harmony is inevitable though rests on it being a fact that such instincts are not hardwired. It does not follow simply because, despite significant evidence in favour of the view, it can't be definitively proven that we should consider it to be definitively false.

Even the tiniest bit of doubt rules out inevitability.

I wrote: ...but if there's a conflict between my country's policies and the welfare of the global community, I support the global community.

Your bias to find fault to find with that statement -- which does not imply that I would favor self-sacrifice as a policy -- is obvious.

You don't seem to realise the implications of your argument based on an abstract universalism that recognises no group other than Humanity.

There is a conflict, your money could do far more good in poor countries than it does in your own. Your moral intuitions should be noting that it is far more important to save the lives of thousands of poor, innocent babies than it is to resurface American roads or buy slightly better computers for your schools. Your brain should be punishing you for such a selfish, arrogant attitude, yet it is not.

Here we have a) self-interest and b) greater concern for one's 'group' than the world in general.

If you are not willing to sacrifice your own quality of life for the greater good, and you view yourself only as a global citizen, why should you expect global harmony? Why should the 99.999%+ of people in the world who identify as something other than a global citizen be willing to do likewise.

Most people want good for others, far fewer want good for others at significant cost to themselves. Like the early humans who wouldn't want to give up their waterhole and hunting grounds just to be kind to others, you don't want to give up yours.

Global harmony requires everyone to be happy with their lot, and that is utopian. It requires everyone to care just as much for people in alien lands as they do for their children or next door neighbour.

 

[joe1776]

Humans appear..... 99.5% of human history passes... Genghis Khan and Hitler appear. You focus on GK and AH. See the problem with your reasoning?

You will recall that I once posted a thread with evidence that humanity has been making moral progress. I can't think of a single reason to think that we humans were kinder people before Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler appeared on the scene. However, if you can, let's hear your argument for it. How did it happen? Do you think that humanity has been in a steady moral decline?

When humans first appeared 300,000 years ago (or whatever the correct figure is), before we had agriculture, before we had cities and countries and armies, we lived in small groups as hunter gatherers....

I suspect you actually believe that primitive people went to war only because of scarce resources. It sounds to me like you have been taken in by the popular myth referred to as the noble savage -- "in literature, an idealized concept of uncivilized man, who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization."

Adopting the extreme position that harmony is inevitable though rests on it being a fact that such instincts are not hardwired.

Wrong. It rests very simply on the idea that our good instincts are strong enough to overcome our bad instincts. And since humanity has been making moral progress, that seems to be the case.

Global harmony requires everyone to be happy with their lot, and that is utopian.

Wrong. Global harmony implies that most people will treat others with kindness and the disputes between all groups can be handled without resorting to violence. It doesn't imply perfection.

It requires everyone to care just as much for people in alien lands as they do for their children or next door neighbour.

Wrong. A global citizen simply wants everyone in the world to be treated as equally as humanly possible and certainly will support efforts to take care of people in need.

You won't like this website:
Why the World Is Better Than You Think in 10 Powerful Charts

 

[Augustus]

You will recall that I once posted a thread with evidence that humanity has been making moral progress. I can't think of a single reason to think that we humans were kinder people before Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler appeared on the scene. However, if you can, let's hear your argument for it. How did it happen?

Not sure that could be any less related to the point I was making

I suspect you actually believe that primitive people went to war only because of scarce resources. It sounds to me like you have been taken in by the popular myth referred to as the noble savage. In literature, an idealized concept of uncivilized man, who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization.

No, I believe humans are violent by nature like other intelligent primates.

Instead of trying to mind-read with bad faith, why not read the actual point though? It is nothing whatsoever to do with a noble savage and I've no idea how anyone could interpret it that wrongly.

When humans first appeared 300,000 years ago (or whatever the correct figure is), before we had agriculture, before we had cities and countries and armies, we lived in small groups as hunter gatherers.

We relied on cooperation within the group, but were wary of other who may want to take our food, our shelter, our women or whatever.

Too high a population density would mean a food shortage, so it is completely false to say 'the bigger the cooperative endeavour the bigger the advantage". Group size was limited to that which could be supported by a pre-agrarian system.

In the dry season there may be a shortage of water so if we had a good supply, we would need to defend it from others who would like to take it from us.

i.e unlimited cooperation was not beneficial for survival, loyalty within your group, with prejudice against outsiders was beneficial though.

And that's before we get to intra-group conflict for reproductive status. Self-deception for better self-promotion, etc which is also supported by evolutionary psychology.

Wrong. It rests very simply on the idea that our good instincts are strong enough to overcome our bad instincts. And since humanity has been making moral progress, that seems to be the case.

Is moral progress limitless or finite?

Wrong. A global citizen simply wants everyone in the world to be treated as equally as humanly possible.

It's humanly possible to give up 90% of your income to save babies. You don't want to do this, thus your self-interest is trumping your moral instincts. The bad side is winning.

 

[joe1776]

Not sure that could be any less related to the point I was making.

Your point was:Humans appear..... 99.5% of human history passes... Genghis Khan and Hitler appear. You focus on GK and AH. Were you not implying that Gengis Khan and Adolf Hitler could not be compared to leaders from an earlier era for some reason? If not, what was your point?

Instead of trying to mind-read with bad faith, why not read the actual point though?

Mind-reading isn't required. Your naive portrayal of primitive man only going to war over scarce resources is a common feature in the noble savage myth from Rousseau to Hollywood's popular film Dances With Wolves..

i.e unlimited cooperation was not beneficial for survival, loyalty within your group, with prejudice against outsiders was beneficial though.

But only because you imagine scarce resources despite very small population in a very large world full of resources. Is that right? Or can you imagine other survival benefits for our species from attacking and killing your weaker neighbors?

And that's before we get to intra-group conflict for reproductive status. Self-deception for better self-promotion, etc which is also supported by evolutionary psychology.

I'm trying to guess what you mean by this but if I guess wrong you'll accuse me of bad faith mind-reading. Please explain.

Is moral progress limitless or finite?

Finite, I suppose. Why do you ask?

It's humanly possible to give up 90% of your income to save babies. You don't want to do this, thus your self-interest is trumping your moral instincts. The bad side is winning.

Good grief. You are really straining to find fault.

 

[Augustus]

Your point was:Humans appear..... 99.5% of human history passes... Genghis Khan and Hitler appear. You focus on GK and AH. Were you not implying that Gengis Khan and Adolf Hitler could not be compared to leaders from an earlier era for some reason? If not, what was your point?

My point was that for the vast majority of our existence we lived in pre-agrarian societies, yet you keep focusing on (relative) modernity.

We didn't evolve to live in modernity.

Mind-reading isn't required. Your naive portrayal of primitive man only going to war over scarce resources is a common feature in the noble savage myth from Rousseau to Hollywood's popular film Dances With Wolves..

You do love a bad-faith argument don't you? Even when your woeful misunderstanding has been very clearly corrected, you still insist that you know much better than me what I meant.

Shouldn't your moral instincts be telling you that arrogant and wilful misrepresentation is morally wrong and an impediment to global harmony?

Hopefully for the last time: you asked how conflict could be evolutionarily advantageous, I was giving you an example.

But only because you imagine scarce resources despite very small population in a very large world. Is that right? Or can you imagine other survival benefits for killing your neighbors?

When you both want to 'own' the same thing of course.

If you want another scientific source to ignore, you can have this:

Large-scale effects of migration and conflict in pre-agricultural groups: Insights from a dynamic model

We argue that the interplay between resource competition, migration, and conflict drove the population dynamics of South America after the colonization phase and before the introduction of agriculture. The relation between population and resources indeed emerged as a key factor leading to migration and conflict once the carrying capacity of the environment has been reached.

Finite, I suppose. Why do you ask?

At what point does it stop?

Good grief. You are really straining to find fault.

See above

 

[joe1776]

My point was that for the vast majority of our existence we lived in pre-agrarian societies, yet you keep focusing on (relative) modernity. We didn't evolve to live in modernity.

Evolution didn't prepare us for the modern world so it's failing? Is that your claim?

You do love a bad-faith argument don't you? Even when your woeful misunderstanding has been very clearly corrected, you still insist that you know much better than me what I meant.

I haven't changed your meaning. I pointed out that the noble savage myth is the likely cause of your belief that primitive societies only went to war over scare resources.

When you both want to 'own' the same thing of course.

It seems to me that killing people over resources threatens the survival of the species.

If you want another scientific source to ignore, you can have this

:Why would I ignore that study? I haven't denied that conflict over resources didn't sometimes happen. I've argued that it probably didn't happen often because of the world resources and small populations. And I've argued also that these primitive societies probably also attacked each other for the same insane reasons that Genghis Khan and A. Hitler led attacks on their weak neighbors.

Your illogical position is that both competition and its opposite cooperation both have survival advantages.My position is that cooperation in a worthy cause (such as the Allies defeating the Axis forces in WW2) has a survival advantage. Thus, the "fittest to survive" are not die-hard competitors but those willing to cooperate in a worthy cause.

Conscience supports my position on survival in that killing innocent people feels wrong but there is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense or to protect those who need it.So, the 55 nations that cooperated in defeating the Axis powers in WW2 were acting in defense of people who couldn't protect themselves from oppression.

 

[Augustus]

Evolution didn't prepare us for the modern world so it's failing? Is that your claim?

No.

I haven't changed your meaning. I pointed out that the noble savage myth is the likely cause of your belief that primitive societies only went to war over scare resources.

I've no idea if you are deliberately misrepresenting my view, you don't read my posts, or are simply incapable of understanding through bias, prejudice or incomprehension.

Either way, when someone is so completely wrong after being corrected on multiple occasions, yet still insists they know best it becomes pointless to continue.

It seems to me that killing people over resources threatens the survival of the species.

Probably because you have a very naive view of what contributes evolutionary fitness for a pre-agrarian world. Read the paper I linked to.

Your illogical position is that both competition and its opposite cooperation both have survival advantages.

Yet all species of intelligent social primates include both, every single human society has included both, and science has demonstrated a neurological basis for both.

On the other hand, you have never linked to a single paper that supports your view, instead relying on a massive amount of overconfident and unscientific extrapolation from people making vastly more conservative claims than you are (which are still themselves open to debate).

If you really can't fathom why both conflict and cooperation may provide advantages in different situations and for different reasons there is no hope for your views progressing.

Watch a documentary about chimps if you want to see both conflict and cooperation in action.

 

[joe1776]

No.

But you're unable to explain what you meant by We didn't evolve to live in modernity

I've no idea if you are deliberately misrepresenting my view, you don't read my posts, or are simply incapable of understanding through bias, prejudice or incomprehension.

Either way, when someone is so completely wrong after being corrected on multiple occasions, yet still insists they know best it becomes pointless to continue.

I certainly agree with what you wrote but is think you're the one who is either unwilling or unable to admit you're wrong on this point.

Probably because you have a very naive view of what contributes evolutionary fitness for a pre-agrarian world. Read the paper I linked to.

You are making an unwarranted assumption.

The very first line of the abstract reads: The debate on the causes of conflict in human societies has deep roots. In particular, the extent of conflict in hunter-gatherer groups remains unclear. The paper offers evidence that conflict over scarce resources probably has happened (a point on which we agree). The researcher did not offer evidence that such events advance the survival of the species. You assumed that simply because it aligns with your understanding that both competition and cooperation are necessary for the survival of the species.

Yet all species of intelligent social primates include both, every single human society has included both, and science has demonstrated a neurological basis for both.

Well yes, of course, we humans have both cooperative and competitive instincts. It's obvious that we have both morally good and bad instincts. But if all our instincts, positive and negative, support survival, then there's no threat to our survival. Yet, we know from evolutionary research that survival isn't guaranteed.

So, what threat do you see? If we aren't threatened by our propensity to compete, what threat do you see? Aren't you simply assuming that human competition is necessary for survival because it happens?

If you really can't fathom why both conflict and cooperation may provide advantages in different situations and for different reasons there is no hope for your views progressing.

I can't "fathom" your claim because it's nonsense that you can't explain beyond recognizing that cooperation and competition both happen.

Team sports give us live research on the coopetition and cooperation phenomena. Teams are cooperative efforts. There is a synergistic effect to teamwork. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.The best team (the best cooperative effort) will usually win the competition. That synergistic effect happens in groups when they work together even when there's no competition.

Watch a documentary about chimps if you want to see both conflict and cooperation in action.

Why does watching chimps conflict and cooperate convince you of anything?

Yes, groups of chimps and people both exhibit conflict and cooperation. And if cooperation doesn't defeat competition neither species will survive.

We humans are making moral progress. Cooperation is winning its battle. I'm not sure about the chimps.

 

[Augustus]

But you're unable to explain what you meant by We didn't evolve to live in modernity





I certainly agree with what you wrote but is think you're the one who is either unwilling or unable to admit you're wrong on this point.

You are making an unwarranted assumption.

The very first line of the abstract reads: The debate on the causes of conflict in human societies has deep roots. In particular, the extent of conflict in hunter-gatherer groups remains unclear. The paper offers evidence that conflict over scarce resources probably has happened (a point on which we agree). The researcher did not offer evidence that such events advance the survival of the species. You assumed that simply because it aligns with your understanding that both competition and cooperation are necessary for the survival of the species.

Well yes, of course, we humans have both cooperative and competitive instincts. It's obvious that we have both morally good and bad instincts. But if all our instincts, positive and negative, support survival, then there's no threat to our survival. Yet, we know from evolutionary research that survival isn't guaranteed.

So, what threat do you see? If we aren't threatened by our propensity to compete, what threat do you see? Aren't you simply assuming that human competition is necessary for survival because it happens?

I can't "fathom" your claim because it's nonsense that you can't explain beyond recognizing that cooperation and competition both happen.

Team sports give us live research on the coopetition and cooperation phenomena. Teams are cooperative efforts. There is a synergistic effect to teamwork. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.The best team (the best cooperative effort) will usually win the competition. That synergistic effect happens in groups when they work together even when there's no competition.

Further evidence you either haven't understood anything I've said, yet remain convinced you have a far greater understanding of what I think than I do.

Can't be bothered repeating myself. You can reread my posts and linked articles, try to identify what you missed the first time, and the numerous times you have added your own views.

Why does watching chimps conflict and cooperate convince you of anything?

They were for your benefit, so you can work out how both cooperation and competition are evolutionarily advantageous for different reasons.

Alternatively you can read all the links I gave you and try to work it out from there, but you aren't having much luck in that regard.

Yes, groups of chimps and people both exhibit conflict and cooperation. And if cooperation doesn't defeat competition neither species will survive.

Why would chimps die out unless they reject competition within and between groups? Can you explain this rationally? Why do you think they evolved that way in the first place?

 

[joe1776]

Further evidence you either haven't understood anything I've said, yet remain convinced you have a far greater understanding of what I think than I do.

Problem No. 1: You make an error common to Internet posters. You seem to assume that what you write should be perfectly clear to others because you understood it perfectly when you wrote it. You are not the worst but I find you difficult to understand. Example: You wrote: We didn't evolve to live in modernity. I speculated on what you meant by that and asked if I was right. You answered "No" and didn't explain what you meant. That was an interesting comment which could shed some light on your argument but I'm still not clear on what you meant by it.

Problem No. 2: You did searches in order to cherry-pick some research to support you. That's fine but you make false claims about the research. For example, the last link you offered would support the conclusion that primitive societies sometimes went to war over scarce necessities (I've never doubted that). But you went further claiming that the research was evidence that competition was essential to survival even though the research had nothing to do with that question.

Problem No. 3: You have trouble understanding cause-and-effect concepts. For example, I pointed out that your position that merely because human societies have been competitive isn't logically evidence that the competition was a benefit to survival and not a threat. You still don't get it. You are jumping to the conclusion that competition is a benefit lacking an argument to support you.

Another example of your trouble understanding cause-and-effect. I pointed out that the common "noble savage" myth involved the very same claim you were making, that primitive tribes went to war only about scarce resources. I was saying that your opinion was likely caused by the same reasoning fallacy. You didn't recognize and debate my argument on cause. You called it "mind reading."

 

[Augustus]

Problem No. 1: You make an error common to Internet posters. You seem to assume that what you write should be perfectly clear to others because you understood it perfectly when you wrote it. You are not the worst but I find you difficult to understand. Example: You wrote: We didn't evolve to live in modernity. I speculated on what you meant by that and asked if I was right. You answered "No" and didn't explain what you meant. That was an interesting comment which could shed some light on your argument but I'm still not clear on what you meant by it.

I have no problem clarifying my point if someone asks, you aren't interested in the clarification though and prefer to make bad-faith 'gotcha' arguments either about things I didn't say or nitpicking trivialities while avoiding the substantial topics.

Again, in this reply you didn't bother to address the stuff about chimps that was most relevant to the discussion and actually relates to not evolving to live in modernity. So if you answer that, I'll explain.

Another example of your trouble understanding cause-and-effect. I pointed out that the common "noble savage" myth involved the very same claim you were making, that primitive tribes went to war only about scarce resources. I was saying that your opinion was likely caused by the same reasoning fallacy. You didn't recognize and debate my argument on cause. You called it "mind reading."

Case in point. 3 times I have told you that you I said nothing of the sort, yet you keep on insisting I was wrong and you were right.

I never said anything about 'only', I said people competed for resources and that humans were violent by nature. You ignored the latter and misrepresented the former.

You were aiming your cod psychology about noble savages at a figment of your imagination.

Problem No. 2: You did searches in order to cherry-pick some research to support you. That's fine but you make false claims about the research. For example, the last link you offered would support the conclusion that primitive societies sometimes went to war over scarce necessities (I've never doubted that). But you went further claiming that the research was evidence that competition was essential to survival even though the research had nothing to do with that question.

"Cherry picking" = rigorously supporting my argument with peer reviewed scientific literature that suggests you are wrong.

Feel free to present your own evidence if you like.

If you don't think it was essential for survival, what do you think happened to those groups and individuals who were not very good at competing for scarce resources when the population of an area became greater than the land could support?

Problem No. 3: You have trouble understanding cause-and-effect concepts. For example, I pointed out that your position that merely because human societies have been competitive isn't logically evidence that the competition was a benefit to survival and not a threat. You still don't get it. You are jumping to the conclusion that competition is a benefit lacking an argument to support you.

See above.

Which view of evolution do you consider to be most accurate btw?