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

[Steve Hovland]

I remember when "Red" used to mean "Commie."

How things change :-)

Who knows, maybe the Republicans are just a
front for the Communists.  Strange bedfellows!

Steve Hovland
www.stevehovland.net


-----Original Message-----
From:	Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, February 22, 2005 8:14 PM
To:	The new improved paleopsych list
Subject:	Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20

Misstatement - more people are _married_ in red states; in blu states 
they just live together, so 'divorces' aren't recorded.


Steve Hovland wrote:

>I hear the divorce rate in the red states is
>higher than the blue states :-)
>
>
>
>Steve Hovland
>www.stevehovland.net
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net]
>Sent:	Tuesday, February 22, 2005 1:43 PM
>To:	The new improved paleopsych list
>Subject:	Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20
>
>
>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>  
>
 << File: ATT00001.html >>  << File: ATT00002.txt >>