<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Hi Gerry, </DIV>
<DIV>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!</DIV>
<DIV>Anyway, enough late-night babbling! It's a good book and might answer your
question...</DIV>
<DIV>All best!</DIV>
<DIV>Alice</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=waluk@earthlink.net href="mailto:waluk@earthlink.net">G.
Reinhart-Waller</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych list</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych
Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>>> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative<BR>dichotomy
may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance,<BR>a threat to shared assumptions
that define a group<BR>against another.<BR><BR>This is absolutely
amazing! Why would any audience <BR>reject someone who cannot plop into
either the liberal <BR>or conservative camp? Please explain the threat
you <BR>feel is apparent. This I need to
hear!<BR><BR>Gerry<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>