<!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 style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Gerry,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>It appears from my
search (though I could be wrong) that Michael is the author of the
first paragraph and you are the author of the second paragraph.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>As for enlightening you about what
Todd has to say, I'd rather leave that up to him. Though I <EM>am</EM> confused
as to what you are not seeing here. It is a social psychological phenomenon
which evolutionary theory helps to explain a bit better. One of the problems may
be linguistic.When I wrote earlier that I thought your question to
Michael's point might be found in evolutionary theories of commitment,
I never invoked terms such as 'moderate'. I was merely answering why I
thought some people might "reject people who cannot plop into either the liberal
camp or the conservative camp." Moderates could be included
in this group, perhaps, but they could also not be included in this
group. I was referring to the class of people who were 'beyond the
liberal/conservative dichotomy'. And, in fact, I had in mind people who
transcend and defy labels...who are sometimes conservative, sometimes
liberal, sometimes socialist, sometimes moderate, etc., depending on
specifics/contexts, etc. I think people who are admixtures of political
ideologies <EM>do</EM> tend to be viewed as threatening, as per Michael's
and Todd's and my points. But okay...a moderate could also be viewed as 'a
problem' for those who tend to be more black-and white in their thinking
and more politically polarized, because in some ways it signals a lack of major
commitment and passion and conviction of principle...(perhaps). I could get into
it more, but this isn'</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>t a big
interest of mine, so I think I'll leave it at that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Alice</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>ps These are just views of how
others might view things and do not reflect how I personally view
things.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT
size=3><FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT>----- Original
Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<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=andrewsa@newpaltz.edu
href="mailto:andrewsa@newpaltz.edu">Alice Andrews</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</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> Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:56
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] threat and
signals of commitment</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><FONT
face=Arial>Alice,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>>>
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!</STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><FONT face=Arial>Since Todd included
this in his email (below) I assumed you were author of the first paragraph,
especially since you were also posted on this. If you weren't the
speaker, any idea who was?</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>And....if you clearly understand what Todd has to say, then
could you kindly enlighten me why he mentions "moderates" and their refusal to
commit?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Gerry</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT><A href="http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk"></A> </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=waluk@earthlink.net
href="mailto:waluk@earthlink.net">G. Reinhart-Waller</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych list</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:41 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of
commitment</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Hi. I have no idea what this
means:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><STRONG>I still do not understand
Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative
focus.</STRONG> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have never and <EM>would never</EM> call for such a thing. It's
ludicrous.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I generally don't use these
words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In
fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>My only contribution to this
discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book
for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think
Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>-Alice</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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=Thrst4knw@aol.com
href="mailto:Thrst4knw@aol.com">Thrst4knw@aol.com</A> ; <A
title=andrewsa@newpaltz.edu
href="mailto:andrewsa@newpaltz.edu">andrewsa@newpaltz.edu</A> ; <A
title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=ToddStark@aol.com
href="mailto:ToddStark@aol.com">ToddStark@aol.com</A> ; <A
title=waluk@earthlink.net
href="mailto:waluk@earthlink.net">waluk@earthlink.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] threat and
signals of commitment</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry
team, speaks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I still do not understand Alice's
call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The
last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my
polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting
preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so
months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since
I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>My reason for signing up as an
Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of
Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the
Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is
a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring
factions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Commitment to marriage, especially
when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular
political party. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Gerry Reinhart-Waller</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=Thrst4knw@aol.com
href="mailto:Thrst4knw@aol.com">Thrst4knw@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=andrewsa@newpaltz.edu
href="mailto:andrewsa@newpaltz.edu">andrewsa@newpaltz.edu</A> ; <A
title=waluk@earthlink.net
href="mailto:waluk@earthlink.net">waluk@earthlink.net</A> ; <A
title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=ToddStark@aol.com
href="mailto:ToddStark@aol.com">ToddStark@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of
commitment</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is
greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning
functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and
leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action
draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise
very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people
around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when
action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to
threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very
difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection.
We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to
decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and
policemen following 9/11. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this
sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions,
with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this
simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people
will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism
and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly
facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously
can be exploited readily. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly
deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or
able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom
lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints
quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the
capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in
politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to
particular causes. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our
social behavior. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>kind regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Todd</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
andrewsa@newpaltz.edu writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mailto:waluk@earthlink.net href="mailto:waluk@earthlink.net">G.
Reinhart-Waller</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto: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><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial>>> 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</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>