co-ops + human behavior

[Mikalac Norman S NSSC <MikalacNS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

How does hierarchical organization have a genetic component? Why even assume
this?

Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI

------------------------------------------------------

alpha-male, alpha-female, etc. hierarchies in other mammals may be working
in humans too.  why do humans tend to idolize and group ("groupies") around
"big people"?  why assume that behavior is learned?

as i said many times, when it comes to human behavior, NO ONE knows how much
is genetic (nature) and how much is environment (nurture, culture)
motivation.  since we don't know very much about human behavior motivation
(think about all the contrary philosophical, psychological, sociological and
biological theories about the subject - one axiom piled on top another,
specious arguments galore - ad infinitum!), if a "special interest group"
(including economic class) wants to promote its "interest", then my personal
preference is to protect the "public interest" (the entire society), i.e.,
avoid as much pain and chaos as possible for everyone.  IOW, my preference
is for the interest group to move GRADUALLY, WHERE POSSIBLE, in the
direction that it desires w/o avoid hurting too many people.

where powerful groups oppress other groups and make these changes impossible
peacefully, then the oppressed ones will revolt and may eventually succeed
in a bloody way.  history provides plenty of examples of these.

hard to tell how things will play out in the West/North countries over "the
long run".  if the Right continues to accumulate economic and political
power, so that the masses (non-elites) become larger and more dissatisfied,
then you can bet that the latter will attempt to get their hands on more
power (revolt) by peaceful or belligerent means.

hence, my advocacy of making a more level playing field for the masses in
the U.S. through public election reform, openness in government, etc.  IOW,
give the masses more political and economic power now before we have real
trouble later.

i realize that the above prescription doesn't play well in Left
Revolutionary Peoria, but it's my preferred denouement.

norm


-----Original Message-----
From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:MikalacNS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:35 AM
To: 'pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: co-ops + human behavior


norm said:

>co-ops may be limited by people's limited motivation for cooperation with
>each other.  e.g, if we are 25% genetically programmed to cooperate with
>people (for survival purposes) and 75%% genetically programmed to compete
>with people (again, for survival purposes), then cooperative ventures will
>always be subordinate to competitive ventures on the average.


jim said:

As Stephen J. Gould points out, it's a mistake to quantify such things in
biology and I haven't the slightest idea of where you got these numbers
from. In any case, competition can take many forms. It doesn't have to be
the aggressive "take no prisoners" kind of competition encouraged by
capitalism.


norm says:

the %'s were just hypothetical ("e.g.") using co-ops as an example.

everyone knows that cooperative, competitive, hierarchical, "creative", etc.
behavior patterns are a function of both genetics (presently not malleable)
and environment (malleable), but no one knows the influence of each.  also,
notwithstanding the "great social thinker" descriptions and prescriptions,
no one knows how LARGE changes in specific laws, codes, cultural values,
etc. will affect individual and group behavior.

if you accept the above statements as facts, then why do ideologues advocate
LARGE economic and political changes when the results of these are unknown?


isn't it in the "public interest" for "interest groups" who want a certain
form of society to prevail to advocate step by step changes toward that goal
and proceed from experience as a safer way to achieve their goal and at the
same time avoid the potential chaos (to the "public interest") of large
changes, the effects of which are unknown?


norm