homo sapiens 2.0?

[What if...?]

This is utter nonsense. It is utterly ridiculous to pretend that the present day American political divide is somehow indicative of human genetics. The terms Liberal and Conservative are near meaningless labels which constantly change what their incredibly vague definitions. Especially since the obvious culprit for political differences is the entrenched American two party system. Your entire concept utterly breaks down when applied to the vast majority of countries past or present who had a different political setup. We won't even get into the actual science of genetics.

First of all I made it pretty clear we're discussing personality types not ideologies. People of both types populate both ideologies.

And that the initial premise had to do with communication. A fundamental inability to understand each other that can't be accounted for by dogma, messaging, etc.

SOME aspects of personality are genetic, tendencies and pre-dispositions, not hard "instincts".

Compassion, for instance, and the willingness to do something for another without expectation of reward are apparently unique to homo sapiens. Part of that 2% difference between us and chimps. Because they do not do this.

An example is teaching. We teach our children and others. Chimps don't teach their kids to fish for termites, for instance. The simply do it themselves and most of the kids learn the behavior, no instruction is done.

The adoption of the a/p lifestyle represented a RADICAL change for mankind. Possibly the biggest in our history, short of the adoption of fire. And 12,000 years plus is plenty of time for new traits to manifest in a population under evolutionary pressure.

(I do agree, however, that a substantial portion of the POLITICAL divide can be attributed to the two party system.)

 

[Goshin]

It's an interesting hypothesis but frankly I think it is too simplistic, and the arguments I'm seeing in support are dubiously circular.

 

[What if...?]

The higher aggression in tribes under more survival pressure would seem logical. Apparently there are fewer natural predators in these areas or the tribes have taken to weeding out other predators to protect the population of their own prey, whatever it is they're hunting.

I've also read that warfare was more costly for tribal groups. Even the loss of one life in a tribe is huge compared to their village counterparts. Consider a tribe of 50, one loss is 2% of the group but what is one life to 1000 villagers? And in one group it's probably a friend that dies, in the other many wouldn't know the dead or only know them fleetingly. For a tribe it's best to avoid war if at all possible. That would seem to reinforce the Lib-h/g connection. In general I agree with your assessment of Libs in hunting and warfare. Lib warfare has more to do with defense than imperialism. Modern hunting is a release mechanism for either group, it's not a lifestyle.

Goshin's posts have high-lighted something, though, and it may be nothing more than a misunderstanding. You've portrayed h/g's as greater risk takers in that they tend to be unafraid of exploration (the unknown) and accept unseen risk better then a/p's. This has caused confusion with foreseeable risk taking. Knowingly throwing yourself into a fight when there seems no other way out doesn't seem to be the same behavior as invading another's land. One is defense, an obvious risk, the other is conquest, an unseen risk. Extreme liberals may be pacifists but I've never considered mainline liberals to be that way. If you're forced to fight (backed into a corner) then you fight with everything you have but just because you're willing to take a risk on the unknown doesn't mean you go looking for a fight. One is an obvious threat (backed into a corner), the other a perceived threat - my enemy is coming for me so I'll go after him, first. Am I understanding you correctly? (This also highlights your original idea about perceived threat and I can now see where that came from.)

Right, a difference in "perspective".

And the small tribe being impacted more by a death is probably why they practised less strategies of raiding, etc. "Counting coup" is a native American version of this kind of strategy. Still looking for that term.

Also, its important to remember that some climes are more abundant than others. One of our group was Tahitian, and the islander situation is interesting in that they had few predators and a relatively "easy" lifestyle. So when considering how h/g peoples lived, WHERE they lived is a critical consideration.

See why this subject was so fun? It really does "fit" well when you start "plugging it in". Not a "there's the answer right there" but definitely "hey, we might be onto something".

 

[What if...?]

It's an interesting hypothesis but frankly I think it is too simplistic, and the arguments I'm seeing in support are dubiously circular.

Remember it was a recreational conversation topic at first. It just kept coming up "plausible" when tested. Ten years ago at least.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "circular". The conversation has become somewhat confrontational, and its not the first time this has happened. Here and in the original dialogues. Not sure why, as no value judgements are included. Nobody gets mad at dolphins for not eating carrots. Or at people for NOT being lactose intolerant, to use one of MoSurveyors examples.

And to answer another of your points, I don't believe in the "noble savage" myth. Pretty sure that in our h/g phase we behaved more like our primate cousins: we moved not because we wanted new scenery, but because we had eaten all the food. So destructively that it often took a long time to recover. Any "conservation" derived from trying to make our lives easier, require less moving around. If you only kill the male deer you don't drive the population down as fast, etc. We practised what Quinn calls "casual agriculture" for a LONG time before adopting the "totalitarian" type. Noting that new plants of types we eat always show up in the place everybody pooped last year, was the kind of thing we took advantage of for example.

Another important distinction is that there is a difference between personal risk and risk to the group overall. Engaging in social "experimentation", trying new ways of doing things is surprisingly (to me) threatening to some people. "We've always done it this way because that's how we do it" has never resonated with me.

 

[MoSurveyor]

We won't even get into the actual science of genetics.

That's good because when it comes to the brain and personality we're about as far along with genetics as an 18th century engineer who just finished measuring a B-2.

It's an interesting hypothesis but frankly I think it is too simplistic, and the arguments I'm seeing in support are dubiously circular.

I think What If's arguments are OK at this point. Maybe you've mistaken my points as for or against when they're not meant to be either. I'm just trying to present what I see as possibly relevant facts (along with initial opinions) and they could prove or disprove the theory. I see this as a discussion and we've barely scratched the surface, still feeling around trying to find all the edge pieces to the puzzle. It is a little odd doing it in a forum, though. My experience with this kind of thing has been a few friends in a relaxed atmosphere with a good bottle and several hours of free time.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Pretty sure that in our h/g phase we behaved more like our primate cousins: we moved not because we wanted new scenery, but because we had eaten all the food. So destructively that it often took a long time to recover.

I think that those who carry stronger expressions of rootstock "h/g" genes tend to be frontier types and newer "a/p" types are more comfortable once things are settled down and the trappings of civilization are in place.

... we came to two primary conclusions.

One is that a primary factor is in how the two groups relate to novelty and risk.

And the "fear" element was more to do with cognition, or how one decides what to be afraid of and how that information is acquired than on individual "courage". Simply put, h/g types tend to be fearful of direct threats. A/p types tend to be fearful of "communicated" threats (invaders, etc) as well, an adaptation to living in FAR larger groups than we had for 100,000+ years before.

Putting all this together can we make a list of h/g and a/p traits - or at least the beginnings of one? I'll start with a summary of what I've seen so far and you can comment and/or add to it. That will give us some kind of baseline to work from.

Cons
- homebodies
- afraid of change
- more aggressive with strangers
- more comfortable around their own people, more social overall
- fear can be caused by imagined threats

Libs
- adventurers
- experimental
- more cooperative with strangers
- comfortable with anyone but less social overall
- fear from immediate threats only

Another important distinction is that there is a difference between personal risk and risk to the group overall. Engaging in social "experimentation", trying new ways of doing things is surprisingly (to me) threatening to some people. "We've always done it this way because that's how we do it" has never resonated with me.

I think we can both agree we're Libs (philosophically, not politically). Otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[What if...?]

Putting all this together can we make a list of h/g and a/p traits - or at least the beginnings of one? I'll start with a summary of what I've seen so far and you can comment and/or add to it. That will give us some kind of baseline to work from.

Cons
- homebodies
- afraid of change
- more aggressive with strangers
- more comfortable around their own people, more social overall
- fear can be caused by imagined threats

Libs
- adventurers
- experimental
- more cooperative with strangers
- comfortable with anyone but less social overall
- fear from immediate threats only

I think we can both agree we're Libs (philosophically, not politically). Otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Sorry, found an interesting essay critiquing the primitive warfare hypothesis while I was looking for the term for the kind of conflict most primitives engaged in. The author couldn't resist infusing some superfluous liberal commentary, but interesting overall. Definitely shed some light on the topic here. "War & the Noble Savage" by Gyrus. If nothing else its got a bunch of cites, etc for future study.

The thrust is that war as we concieve of it was pretty rare among primitive peoples who lived in "unsegmented" non-sedentary groups. Which constitutes 94% or so of our history as a species. That war and society "grew up" together. The only archaeological records of primitive peoples engaging in "war" were during periods of extreme pressure, such as the end of the last ice age, when ecological factors led to fierce competition for once abundant food sources.

Interesting stuff. But back to the topjc at hand.

Some qualification and commentary on your list:

Cons (a/p)

Homebodies - If ypu mean more likely to live their entire lives in one area, then yes.

Afraid of change - not really. Our take was if some people are neophiles and some neophobes, the a/p expression would be neo"meh". Not particularly interested, suspiscious, but not really "afraid".

Both the more aggressive with strangers and more social overall would more acchrately be stated as "differently" social. Human beings are suspiscious of "strangers", its one of the bases of racism. Unfamiliar faces "prime" fight or flight.

The key differences are segmented/unsegmented and sedentary/nomadic. There were a variety of sedentary and segmented forager groups, usually those relying on fish and other sea food, who technically are h/g but adopt many of the social structures common to a/p groups. These represent adaptations to.living in MUCH larger groups than we had for the vast majority of our history. "Band" is the term generally applied to unsegmented, nomadic groups.

And the last for a/p I think would more accurately be stated "more responsive to communicated threats as opposed to observed ones than their h/g cousins."

As far as the "libs" (h/g) list goes, more or less correct if somewhat idealized.

More comfortable with change, more likely to adopt new ways of doing things, maybe. I think "experimental" is common to both. "Leisure" time in a/p groups, as well as the ability to have a "shop" that a sedentary lifestyle permits led to the boom in technology and art, so that would constitute "experimentation". But major changes once the a/p lifestyle is adopted are problematic because so much is already invested in one way of doing things.

More cooperative with strangers might be better stated as less likely to be hostile towards. This gets to one of the points of the essay, h/g types might kill you for something YOU did to THEM. Personal. War involves killing a member of another group simply for being part of that GROUP. No personal involvement is necessary. My "team" kills members of your "team" BECAUSE they are on your team. Some unknown member of your team may have done something to an unknown member of my team.

I don't think one group is more social than the other. We are social animals, our social.strategies differ.

And again, "less" likely to respond to communicated threats, simply because most threats are directly observed rather than reported.

Now its time to finish that essay!

 

[ProjectCornDog]

Lets say HYPOTETICALLY your theory is right (dont believe it is) but both "sub-species" aren't equal. A society that relies on a monopolized institution which "spreads the wealth" so to speak is VASTLY inferior to a society that is cooperative without force.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Interesting stuff. But back to the topic at hand.

Some qualification and commentary on your list:

Cons (a/p)

Homebodies - If ypu mean more likely to live their entire lives in one area, then yes.

Afraid of change - not really. Our take was if some people are neophiles and some neophobes, the a/p expression would be neo"meh". Not particularly interested, suspiscious, but not really "afraid".

Both the more aggressive with strangers and more social overall would more acchrately be stated as "differently" social. Human beings are suspiscious of "strangers", its one of the bases of racism. Unfamiliar faces "prime" fight or flight.

The key differences are segmented/unsegmented and sedentary/nomadic. There were a variety of sedentary and segmented forager groups, usually those relying on fish and other sea food, who technically are h/g but adopt many of the social structures common to a/p groups. These represent adaptations to.living in MUCH larger groups than we had for the vast majority of our history. "Band" is the term generally applied to unsegmented, nomadic groups.

And the last for a/p I think would more accurately be stated "more responsive to communicated threats as opposed to observed ones than their h/g cousins."

As far as the "libs" (h/g) list goes, more or less correct if somewhat idealized.

More comfortable with change, more likely to adopt new ways of doing things, maybe. I think "experimental" is common to both. "Leisure" time in a/p groups, as well as the ability to have a "shop" that a sedentary lifestyle permits led to the boom in technology and art, so that would constitute "experimentation". But major changes once the a/p lifestyle is adopted are problematic because so much is already invested in one way of doing things.

More cooperative with strangers might be better stated as less likely to be hostile towards. This gets to one of the points of the essay, h/g types might kill you for something YOU did to THEM. Personal. War involves killing a member of another group simply for being part of that GROUP. No personal involvement is necessary. My "team" kills members of your "team" BECAUSE they are on your team. Some unknown member of your team may have done something to an unknown member of my team.

I don't think one group is more social than the other. We are social animals, our social.strategies differ.

And again, "less" likely to respond to communicated threats, simply because most threats are directly observed rather than reported.

Now its time to finish that essay!

Sounds interesting - I'll try to check it out.

Let's try this as a comparison between groups. What I'm trying to pin down are the fundamental differences.

Change
So a/p society is less likely to change because of inertia but individual a/p's are neutral. H/g's aren't as rigid as a society (less inertia) or as individuals.

As far as art goes that started in h/g society ~40k years ago during what some call the Great Leap. Discovery as in technology may have required a specialist but I'd still say the impetus behind discovery was part of the Great Leap. However, I could be convinced it's a blending of the two, impossible without both a/p and h/g behavior.


Strangers
H/g's seem to be able to over-ride fight or flight while a/p's cannot - at least that's what I got out of the MRI study. In fact, a/p's not only don't over-ride fight or flight, they react more aggressively when it's triggered (more fight than flight). A/p's can't run most of the time, they are at home and must defend it, so it's natural for them to evolve that way.

Fear
So, as far as communicated threats go they both react the same? It's just that a/p's are more likely, because of their living arrangements, to experience it? So, essentially, they're the same in this area?


Hmm, that doesn't leave a lot of difference between them. Maybe you can point out some other differences?

 

[What if...?]

Sounds interesting - I'll try to check it out.

Let's try this as a comparison between groups. What I'm trying to pin down are the fundamental differences.

Change
So a/p society is less likely to change because of inertia but individual a/p's are neutral. H/g's aren't as rigid as a society (less inertia) or as individuals.

As far as art goes that started in h/g society ~40k years ago during what some call the Great Leap. Discovery as in technology may have required a specialist but I'd still say the impetus behind discovery was part of the Great Leap. However, I could be convinced it's a blending of the two, impossible without both a/p and h/g behavior.


Strangers
H/g's seem to be able to over-ride fight or flight while a/p's cannot - at least that's what I got out of the MRI study. In fact, a/p's not only don't over-ride fight or flight, they react more aggressively when it's triggered (more fight than flight). A/p's can't run most of the time, they are at home and must defend it, so it's natural for them to evolve that way.

Fear
So, as far as communicated threats go they both react the same? It's just that a/p's are more likely, because of their living arrangements, to experience it? So, essentially, they're the same in this area?


Hmm, that doesn't leave a lot of difference between them. Maybe you can point out some other differences?

On change I wouldn't say a/p individuals are neutral. I just think the term "afraid" overstates. On a scale from neophilia to neophobia, id say a bit past "ambivalence" towards the neophobia side, with "uncomfortable" and "suspiscious" as more applicable terms. I doubt there were many communicated threats in h/g "bands", most threats were directly observed. I included sedentary foragers (fishing groups for example) because while techn ically they are h/g, they adopt the same type of lifestyles as a/p groups.

In regards to experimentation, I was focusing more on changes in ways of doing things as opposed to innovation. I would say discovery is common to both groups but a/p making more discoveries faster and on a technologically larger scale due to advantages of the lifestyle. H/g types made significant technological advances as well as artistic well before adoption of the a/p lifestyle, but probably didn't have full time artists, for instance.

On strangers, you about summed it up.

It really isn't lot of differences, just a couple VERY significant ones. And all originating when we started living in groups too large for everybody to know everybody else well enough to have the kind of strong bonds found in h/g bands. That and the change from being a "part" of the environment to being "masters" of it. Deciding what lives and dies. Quinns ideas in Ismael focused on this. He uses the terms "totalitarian agriculture" and "casual agriculture" to make the distinction between that practised by sedentary and nomadic groups, respectively. He even posits that the legend of the "fall" originated with h/g types in reference to a/p types. A/p groups choose one plant to live and another to die, exterminate predators, etc., actions previously reserved for "god(s)", whatever form they may take.

An interesting thing came from my reading of the essay I mentioned. I was reminded that there is a powerful schism regarding nature vs. nurture. I've always felt it was both, with the caveat that our intellects allow us to overcome our genetic "natures". Much hay has been made recently about things like homosexuality and criminality having a genetic basis and ideological conservatives tend to strongly deny this. They "read" it as a cop-out, an "excuse". Whether born of "nature" or dogma, it does help to explain the dismissive animosity to the topic.

 

[What if...?]

On change I wouldn't say a/p individuals are neutral. I just think the term "afraid" overstates. On a scale from neophilia to neophobia, id say a bit past "ambivalence" towards the neophobia side, with "uncomfortable" and "suspiscious" as more applicable terms. I doubt there were many communicated threats in h/g "bands", most threats were directly observed. I included sedentary foragers (fishing groups for example) because while techn ically they are h/g, they adopt the same type of lifestyles as a/p groups.

In regards to experimentation, I was focusing more on changes in ways of doing things as opposed to innovation. I would say discovery is common to both groups but a/p making more discoveries faster and on a technologically larger scale due to advantages of the lifestyle. H/g types made significant technological advances as well as artistic well before adoption of the a/p lifestyle, but probably didn't have full time artists, for instance.

On strangers, you about summed it up.

It really isn't lot of differences, just a couple VERY significant ones. And all originating when we started living in groups too large for everybody to know everybody else well enough to have the kind of strong bonds found in h/g bands. That and the change from being a "part" of the environment to being "masters" of it. Deciding what lives and dies. Quinns ideas in Ismael focused on this. He uses the terms "totalitarian agriculture" and "casual agriculture" to make the distinction between that practised by sedentary and nomadic groups, respectively. He even posits that the legend of the "fall" originated with h/g types in reference to a/p types. A/p groups choose one plant to live and another to die, exterminate predators, etc., actions previously reserved for "god(s)", whatever form they may take.

An interesting thing came from my reading of the essay I mentioned. I was reminded that there is a powerful schism regarding nature vs. nurture. I've always felt it was both, with the caveat that our intellects allow us to overcome our genetic "natures". Much hay has been made recently about things like homosexuality and criminality having a genetic basis and ideological conservatives tend to strongly deny this. They "read" it as a cop-out, an "excuse". Whether born of "nature" or dogma, it does help to explain the dismissive animosity to the topic.

I forgot hierarchies. A/p types are more accepting of ridgid formal hierarchies.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I forgot hierarchies. A/p types are more accepting of ridgid formal hierarchies.

Do you mean a restriction of personal freedom (laws) or a willingness to accept the decisions of others (taking orders) or both?

 

[Rosie1]

Interesting, but I think our divide and politics is much simpler than that. Factors I see in play are: 1) "Too many rats in the ship syndrome" (as our population grows more people cannot cope); 2) Basic right brain-left brain, or Meyer-Briggs type differences; 3) Factions in our country that have capitolized & indeed made great efforts to increase differences with wedge issues, etc.

I feel we would be a much healthier and balanced country if we had a truly viable third party. I hope the "dumbing down" of America isn't a reality, but that can happen with too many "rats in the ship." Also, due to istant media, anything that happens is "news" to everyone right away (no matter how stupid or pointless it is). Ignorance was bliss, but we don't really want ignorance, do we?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

At this point I am not going to argue for or against the premise being discussed. I just want to interject a point in addition to your conversation.

There are many people that do not really fit within the two sides that you are assigning. Perhaps the field is a bit larger then you are assuming?
I know that you confined this discussion on personality traits rather than ideology. But assuming that the world is populated by either Cons or Lbs seems a bit narrow minded.

I have ran into this same conversation among other people before. The topic becomes stagnant since it is confined with the black or white concept. And even further when ideologies start dictating even more confinements. I believe what Goshin meant by the hypothesis being too simplistic is that it confines the conversation within a set goal. Which is to define the factor that sets ideologies apart. I think a better approach would be to better describe what drives humans in more detail and perhaps in the end it may shed some light on the question of why Cons and Libs exist and what other types exist as well.

I am pointing this out because I really do not fit in either category of Lib or Con. Another point I would like to make is that when looking into what drives a person to behave and act a certain way all aspects of the equation must be addressed. Which does include ideology but also religious and demographics Etc. Notice that I am not excluding genetics.

Anyway just thought I would through my opinion in the mix lol. I would have provided more detail but its time to go gather some food

 

[MoSurveyor]

Interesting, but I think our divide and politics is much simpler than that. Factors I see in play are: 1) "Too many rats in the ship syndrome" (as our population grows more people cannot cope); 2) Basic right brain-left brain, or Meyer-Briggs type differences; 3) Factions in our country that have capitolized & indeed made great efforts to increase differences with wedge issues, etc.

1) I'm not sure I get the connection there - would you care to expand that a little?

2) Meyer-Briggs doesn't attempt to explain the origins of those types, though.
I'd be interested in hearing more about left/right and how you think it pertains to the Lib/Con divide. It would be an obvious biological difference if it held up better but I didn't see it when I went looking.

3) I think we all agree that environment plays an important role here, which sadly includes the spin we're often fed. But to drive a wedge there must first be a divide, to influence there must be a leaning or tendency. Where do those things start?

 

[MoSurveyor]

An interesting thing came from my reading of the essay I mentioned. I was reminded that there is a powerful schism regarding nature vs. nurture. I've always felt it was both, with the caveat that our intellects allow us to overcome our genetic "natures". Much hay has been made recently about things like homosexuality and criminality having a genetic basis and ideological conservatives tend to strongly deny this. They "read" it as a cop-out, an "excuse". Whether born of "nature" or dogma, it does help to explain the dismissive animosity to the topic.

To me that "dismissive animosity" makes perfect since from what we've been saying. A/p's have been convinced that criminals deserve to be punished for being "bad" and (because of our insanity rules) that such behavior is a conscious choice they make. That gives us our "out", our relief from guilt to carry out sentencing. But if biology were to prove that "bad" behavior is the result of anatomy, of the genes we're born with and not a conscious decision, then the social excuse we use for punishment of bad behavior gets thrown out the window. That's a major game-changer because IF it's true that criminal behavior is biological then society no longer has that release from guilt. We would have to decide to continue as we have been, essentially weeding the population "by hand" so to speak to consciously alter the gene pool, or do something else that's a radical departure from history. Either way it's a huge social change that a/p's are ill-equipped to handle.

 

[Paralogic]

I believe that the human species has split into two "sub species".

First of all, in common language the the term "believe" means adherence and support to an unsubstantiated claim, like in religion.

Second, the time span of human societies in the last few hundred thousand years that we can reasonably trace our history, is too short to produce a "sub species" as you call it.

Third, all social interactions in human societies in the modern era of the last 500,000 years or so, or maybe more, are influenced by the physiological and biological interactions in the human brain. As far as we know, this is not a cause for speciation in a species.

I think it will a better use of your time to examine and analyze individual and group behavior from the perspective of sociology, rather than biology.

 

[What if...?]

Do you mean a restriction of personal freedom (laws) or a willingness to accept the decisions of others (taking orders) or both?

Accepting of decisions made by others. Also, accepting of the concept of "superiors". Others with the RIGHT to tell you what to do and sanctions for failure to comply.

A chief could and probably did tell other tribemates what to do. But his ability to compel compliance was limited to what he could actually MAKE them do, alone or with the help of his "lieutenants". All the men probably hunt, fight etc. No force monopoly is in place, no "enforcement" arms exist.

That said, we've always had "laws", rules everybody is supposed to follow. All our social primate cousins do the leader/follower thing. Our historical record involving "primitive" peoples indicates its a homo sapiens thing too. But its likely it was largely consensual, based on merit, 'cuz we ALL kill mammoths, motha****a!

The adoption of the a/p lifestyle led quickly to RIDGID hierarchies and enforcers, right after we started locking up and passing out the food. With all the potential for corruption and inequality that brings. Which we invariably did after we settled down.

 

[What if...?]

At this point I am not going to argue for or against the premise being discussed. I just want to interject a point in addition to your conversation.

There are many people that do not really fit within the two sides that you are assigning. Perhaps the field is a bit larger then you are assuming?
I know that you confined this discussion on personality traits rather than ideology. But assuming that the world is populated by either Cons or Lbs seems a bit narrow minded.

I have ran into this same conversation among other people before. The topic becomes stagnant since it is confined with the black or white concept. And even further when ideologies start dictating even more confinements. I believe what Goshin meant by the hypothesis being too simplistic is that it confines the conversation within a set goal. Which is to define the factor that sets ideologies apart. I think a better approach would be to better describe what drives humans in more detail and perhaps in the end it may shed some light on the question of why Cons and Libs exist and what other types exist as well.

I am pointing this out because I really do not fit in either category of Lib or Con. Another point I would like to make is that when looking into what drives a person to behave and act a certain way all aspects of the equation must be addressed. Which does include ideology but also religious and demographics Etc. Notice that I am not excluding genetics.

Anyway just thought I would through my opinion in the mix lol. I would have provided more detail but its time to go gather some food

I also hold a mix of conservative and liberal beliefs, I am ideologically impure.

Perhaps a clarification is in order. I've spent a lot of time discussing these kinds of topics and over time it just becomes a given that all considerations of behavior and psychology, especially when genetics enter the discussion, are in terms of a scale or spectrum. More inclined/less inclined, strong expressions/weak expressions, tendencies and predispositions, etc. Black and white dichotomies aren't really applicable, so aren't assumed.

My hypothesis here presumes a "dumbell curve", where there are two distinct "peaks" with a trough in the middle of people who carry mixtures of the two types that dilute the differences, as Goshin mentioned. And little flat sections at either end where the two sets of traits are STRONGLY reinforced. (ADD and autism? Can't get enough new stuff, can't handle all this new stuff?)

So for the purposes of this discussion, assume I'm NOT stating that one is EITHER an h/g or a/p type, but that there is a probable genetic influence at play, why it came about, and what forms it might take.

 

[What if...?]

Lets say HYPOTETICALLY your theory is right (dont believe it is) but both "sub-species" aren't equal. A society that relies on a monopolized institution which "spreads the wealth" so to speak is VASTLY inferior to a society that is cooperative without force.

No property or the protection thereof in a/g groups, relatively communistic meritocracy.

 

[What if...?]

First of all, in common language the the term "believe" means adherence and support to an unsubstantiated claim, like in religion.

Second, the time span of human societies in the last few hundred thousand years that we can reasonably trace our history, is too short to produce a "sub species" as you call it.

Third, all social interactions in human societies in the modern era of the last 500,000 years or so, or maybe more, are influenced by the physiological and biological interactions in the human brain. As far as we know, this is not a cause for speciation in a species.

I think it will a better use of your time to examine and analyze individual and group behavior from the perspective of sociology, rather than biology.

You are correct that my use of terms was loose to the point of lacking.

A more accurate opening would have been "I hypothesize that homo sapiens began to differentiate genetically with the adoption of the a/p lifestyle circa 12,000 years ago".

All physiological and biological processes of the brain are the result of structures determined by genetics.

12,000 years is plenty of time for measurable differentiation to occur, if evolutionary pressures are high and populations are homogeneous. Almost all of the breeds of dogs we are familiar with came into being in I believe the eighteenth century, when a dog breeding fad swept the globe.

In one of MoSurveyors posts he mentions that pastoral societies have evolved lactose tolerance and there is also a genetic adaptaion to eating grains, both of which are, obviously, post adoption of the a/p lifestyle about 12,000 years ago.

The conversations from whence this idea evolved were primarily sociological/philosophical in nature. We just kept coming to a genetic element.

Contemplate the phenomenon of the "doppelganger".

Almost everyone has met at least one person who is almost exactly like someone else they know. Doesn't just look like them but acts like them as well, may do the same kind of work, same sort of interests, etc.. It can be uncanny, but as the same kind of thing shows up in some sets of identical twins separated at birth, genes are probably in play.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You are correct that my use of terms was loose to the point of lacking.

A more accurate opening would have been "I hypothesize that homo sapiens began to differentiate genetically with the adoption of the a/p lifestyle circa 12,000 years ago".

All physiological and biological processes of the brain are the result of structures determined by genetics.

12,000 years is plenty of time for measurable differentiation to occur, if evolutionary pressures are high and populations are homogeneous. Almost all of the breeds of dogs we are familiar with came into being in I believe the eighteenth century, when a dog breeding fad swept the globe.

In one of MoSurveyors posts he mentions that pastoral societies have evolved lactose tolerance and there is also a genetic adaptaion to eating grains, both of which are, obviously, post adoption of the a/p lifestyle about 12,000 years ago.

The conversations from whence this idea evolved were primarily sociological/philosophical in nature. We just kept coming to a genetic element.

Contemplate the phenomenon of the "doppelganger".

Almost everyone has met at least one person who is almost exactly like someone else they know. Doesn't just look like them but acts like them as well, may do the same kind of work, same sort of interests, etc.. It can be uncanny, but as the same kind of thing shows up in some sets of identical twins separated at birth, genes are probably in play.

The twins angle needs more research to move any further. Recently it has been shown that twins become less alike with age. Their epigenome changes from various influences from nature. Identical Twins May Have More Differences Than Meet The Eye

Babies are born with some personality traits. So there is definitely a genetic element in Characteristics. But life experiences over time develop their own behavioral characteristics. Social interaction and personal reasoning within ones mind molds a personality. There are no two people with the exact same personality traits and characteristics; because it takes both genetics and environmental experiences to form a person’s set of behaviors and actions. While some personality traits are inherited and do not change, characteristics can change with life experiences and reactions.

Genetic changes in response to environmental stresses will cause homo sapiens to be larger or smaller depending on those stresses. I think the key to your hypothesis is environmental stresses. There are two things that environmental stresses can produce the first being adjustments the second being adaptions. Size changes in humans is an adjustment while more melanin levels is genetic adaption.

None of this is to you I am sure. But I am having a hard time seeing how your hypothesis is not the result of your desire to see a certain outcome. I mean no disrespect, I do see merit in your ideas. I think it may be possible that some real world tests might be helpful to you though. To go further you need to pin down the genetic coding that would support your claims. Perhaps existing work exists that can provide some validity to further your hypothesis. But at this point I believe that you have ran into a road block until you can be able to explain plausible counter explanations. The first question is what shows that we are talking about natural selection rather than simply adjustments based on current environmental stresses. If you take subjects that are defined as descendants of multiple generations of a/p lifestyle and placed them in a different environment would they adjust or would there need to be adaptions to counter the a/p lifestyle?

I am not trying to denounce your ideas by any means. But if you are serious about presenting this hypothesis to be peer reviewed eventually, you are going to be faced with large disagreement. Better to refine it now in order to understand if there is really a point to your ideas. So I guess what I am asking is for a more definite outline and a direct list of sources that led you on your path of discovery.

 

[Goshin]

I also hold a mix of conservative and liberal beliefs, I am ideologically impure.

Perhaps a clarification is in order. I've spent a lot of time discussing these kinds of topics and over time it just becomes a given that all considerations of behavior and psychology, especially when genetics enter the discussion, are in terms of a scale or spectrum. More inclined/less inclined, strong expressions/weak expressions, tendencies and predispositions, etc. Black and white dichotomies aren't really applicable, so aren't assumed.

My hypothesis here presumes a "dumbell curve", where there are two distinct "peaks" with a trough in the middle of people who carry mixtures of the two types that dilute the differences, as Goshin mentioned. And little flat sections at either end where the two sets of traits are STRONGLY reinforced. (ADD and autism? Can't get enough new stuff, can't handle all this new stuff?)

So for the purposes of this discussion, assume I'm NOT stating that one is EITHER an h/g or a/p type, but that there is a probable genetic influence at play, why it came about, and what forms it might take.

Okay. If you'd put it that way to start with, the whole hypothesis would have come across as a bit more reasonable and less black/white, you know.

 

[MoSurveyor]

If you take subjects that are defined as descendants of multiple generations of a/p lifestyle and placed them in a different environment would they adjust or would there need to be adaptions to counter the a/p lifestyle?

I don't believe a/p's have drifted far enough from h/g's to be in a position where they couldn't adapt to the h/g lifestyle. First off, not all a/p changes are "negative". In those areas where there are demonstrable genetic changes, lactose tolerance and grain-nutrition efficiency, there is no "downside" so to speak. Neither of those genetic changes decreases the ability to gain nutrients from other food sources like fruit, nuts, and meat. Secondly, "good" a/p traits may offset "bad" a/p traits. Over time it may turn out the a/p's descendants are better organizers and planners but worse at throwing. While they may not be able to hit what they're targeting as often, that may be offset by an ability to better organize a hunting party for ambush, letting others with better targeting skills make the kill. What few a/p traits are leftover after taking these others into account would probably be over-ridden by the h/g lifestyle, itself.


Your other points are well taken. Environment can be a big influence on behavior, maybe bigger than any minor genetic changes we've seen so far. More thought and research is required.

 

[celticwar17]

I think the divisions of liberal and conservative populations are more complicated. There are distinct professions and skills even in a really urban settings where there are vastly more conservatives then liberals and the other way around, and as liberal populations in very rural settings and the other way around. It just seems that in the OP it is split of two simply into two different aspects and maybe it is more about exceeding the same job in different ways. The theory seems to contradict a section of the liberal group extremely anti-violence which could be Fear based, and conservative populations in military being higher.