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

[G. Reinhart-Waller]

Of interest is that many older people have grave 
concerns about their children having difficulty making 
long-term commitments (see Alice's post below).  If 
what Steve says (below) is correct, by advising our 
youths to make political and social commitments, we are 
in effect brainwashing them into grabbing a 
conservative mentality.  I wonder if it also follows 
that those without any commitment are those with 
liberal mentality.

Gerry Reinhart-Waller


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Hovland" <shovland at mindspring.com>
To: "'Alice Andrews'" <andrewsa at newpaltz.edu>; "'The 
new improved paleopsych list'" 
<paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 3:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, 
Issue 20


> This also touches on the issue of black-and-white
> versus shades-of-gray mentalities.
>
> The conservative mentality tends to be 
> black-and-white
> while the liberal mentality is more shades-of-gray.
>
> Both sides have problems when carried to the extreme.
>
> A conservative can be unbending at a time when it is
> actually in his self-interest to be flexible, and a 
> liberal
> can be unable to commit to a course of action when
> that is required.
>
> Steve Hovland
> www.stevehovland.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alice Andrews [SMTP:andrewsa at newpaltz.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:31 PM
> To: The new improved paleopsych list
> 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 
> << File:
> ATT00002.html >>  << File: ATT00003.txt >>
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>