<!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>
<DIV>Hi Gerry,</DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for the note...</DIV>
<DIV>There was an interesting article somewhere--maybe Frank sent it in?--about
teenagers and the possiblity that what they were missing was 'religion' or
'spirituality' or a 'sense of purpose and meaning beyond them.' Do you remember
reading that on paleo some time ago? I can't find it...But it seems apropos to
your missive. (If anyone knows it and can send out again, I'd appreciate!)</DIV>
<DIV>Thanks and cheers,</DIV>
<DIV>Alice</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hi Alice,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'll add the book to my list.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gerry</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=andrewsa@newpaltz.edu href="mailto:andrewsa@newpaltz.edu">Alice
Andrews</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych list</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 21, 2005 8:30 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue
20</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych mailing
list<BR>paleopsych@paleopsych.org<BR>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>