[Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20

[G. Reinhart-Waller]

Hi Alice,

Thanks for the rec re: Nesse's  "Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment".  Although I still haven't read it I'm familiar with its contents.  The issue of 'commitment' especially for young people is something that definitely needs addressing and maybe requiring our youth to make a firm political commitment to a particular party will carry over to their demonstrating less risky behavior with drugs, sex, employment, family or whatever.  Yet isn't our youth already politically brainwashed into political awareness or have they flicked away that duty as well?  I no longer hang out with our country's young but when I did I found that very few had their head screwed on correctly and many were adrift;  from what I hear now they still continue on their aimless flow.  When I wrote my original answer my thoughts were on "my generation", not the others.  Thanks for your post.

I'll add the book to my list.

Gerry



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alice Andrews 
To: The new improved paleopsych list 
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20


Hi Gerry, 
Randy Nesse edited a book called "Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment"; do you know it? It's wonderful... if you don't. (His 'Commitment in the Clinic' chapter is superb, btw.) Anyway, I think the book addresses your question. The word 'commitment' itself addresses the question. We have evolved mechanisms for detecting commitment and for detecting possible defection in others. People who tow the party line, etc. are considered committed. We seek out such people because it is proximately and ultimately adaptive to do so. Befriending, supporting, trusting, etc. the uncommitted would have been-- and still is, a risk (or threat). Such risks could have been very costly over our evolutionary history and can be still today. Of course, sometimes such risks (siding with someone who seems to be sitting on the fence, uncommitted, a rebel) can be to one's advantage. But 'ancient-brain' doesn't know this--and probably 'statistics-brain' doesn't know this either!
Anyway, enough late-night babbling! It's a good book and might answer your question...
All best!
Alice
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: G. Reinhart-Waller 
  To: The new improved paleopsych list 
  Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20


  >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative
  dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance,
  a threat to shared assumptions that define a group
  against another.

  This is absolutely amazing!  Why would any audience 
  reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal 
  or conservative camp?  Please explain the threat you 
  feel is apparent.  This I need to hear!

  Gerry


  _______________________________________________
  paleopsych mailing list
  paleopsych at paleopsych.org
  http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych


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


_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20050222/1c8700bf/attachment.html>