This program confirmed for me ideas I have had about the nature of stress - forgive me for posting here but I would be interested in any views. --------------------------------------- Horses, like humans, form social groups, and individual horses develop severe anxieties when split from the group. The horse gains from belonging to the herd – it feels safe – and the species has a mechanism to help it thrive. Humans are also co-operative - we share the need of horses to belong to a group and we suffer the same anxieties when separated or excluded.
Stress has always been portrayed as a fight and flee mechanism – but perhaps that needs to be questioned. As one who has suffered form anxiety and stress I do not relate to this at all. The feeling of being in imminent danger is quite different to the feeling of being anxious.
Humans have a strong need to belong to things – we are punished when we don’t belong by having strong feelings of anxiety. On the other side of this coin we are rewarded emotionally when we make or affirm attachments.
Could stress be an important contributor to our success as a species? The cradle of our race is in Africa. As primitive tribesmen we moved up through that continent, through Europe, Asia, the Americas and then to Australasia.
It has been assumed that this expansion was caused by the exploration and colonisation of existing tribes but this rather imputes quite modern motives onto people whose main priority was survival. How could stress be a better explanation?
Taking a step back to see if there was some more natural explanation in terms of social behaviour, it would appear that two separate characteristics would have been needed - 1. A mechanism that brought us together in cohesive social groups – this is an easy one to understand and accept. But if that was as far as it went then we as a race would not have made it out of Africa. How did we end up with tribes all over the world? 2. I would propose there was another mechanism that caused successful tribes to splinter and breakaway tribes formed. This though would appear to be contrary to the first requirement.
It may not be so difficult to reconcile these however if we consider stress as behind both of those mechanisms. We know that 250 is the optimum size for a social group. Could stresses within a successful and therefore larger tribe make members turn against the tribe and break away?
Stress is really all about 'belonging' and this happens at various levels - belonging to family being as important as belonging to the larger tribe or society. Within families people can experience intense closeness – they can also break away when things go wrong. Love, marriage divorce – intensely close relationships having equally intense breakdowns. Families break-up – members walk out or are ejected. Part of the cycle is to move on to create our own families – new sets of ties.
I said before that ‘fight and flee’ was not a good explanation for anxiety. If you look through the list of common stressors they bear no relationship to ‘fight and flee’. However, they do share the common theme of ‘not belonging’ – death of a loved one, job loss, moving house.
If a tribe is successful and has outgrown the 250 optimum size there will be stress caused by this. This will cause frictions, schisms and breakaways and the formation of new tribes. Tribes are a mixture of skills and aptitudes (leaders, followers, creators, plodders ....) – large tribes will end up with too many dominants and this will cause friction and therefore stress.
Let me develop a very very crude take on the whole issue of human development.
Firstly, I think I too can accept that survival has always been at the heart of social development. If there were no security on social/biological life, then there would never be a 'society' in the first place.
Now, what is it that societies have always been trying to secure themselves against? I think one of the important clue lies with 'the mother nature'.
It is against this threat from the possibility of uncontrollable natural disasters (e.g. disease, typhoon, drought) that the human race has always been forced to 'fight and flee'. The key explanatory 'force' from my perspective, then, is this word 'uncontrollable'. Humans cannot escape the fact that they are 100% (as yet) dependent on the fruits of the mother Nature, mainly food and dhelter, which makes 'exploration' as well as 'colonisation' a necessity in oder to 'survive'. This is because the environment always 'change'. Nature, at no given time and place, sit still, providing humans with unlimited source of food and shelter. From the forces of mother Nature, then, human race is 100% at her mercy, constantly forced to adjust their way of life, biologically (e.g. diet) as well as their social organisation (e.g. specialisation, appropriate division of labour). No wonder why 'anxiety' seem so natural, a very important part of human life and suffering.
At this point, let me just clarify that 'nature' in the way that I put it also includes 'human body', a biological form of 'being' other than 'society' or 'culture' that is needed to be kept well looked after if human race itself were to survive. By making this point clear, you could also see that different 'ideas' of society (e.g. capitalist or communist) as well as culture (e.g. athesist or tribal) is also necessary for 'organising' human race 'structure' to continue existing (e.g. the best way, depending on the 'local' environmental conditions, to organise social/cultural/political etc life in order to distribute food most effectively and efficiently).
Now, having developed a perspective arguing for the positioning of entire human race within a wider system of ecosphere, we can develop an even more interesting take on the issue of social 'differentiation'. Modern form of 'differentiation theory' as developed upon the theories of classical sociologists like Durkheim and Parsons are well known. But I'm just gonna, out of stupid head of mine, outline a few speculative causes into the nature of social differentiation/development as I understand it.
First, it is during the time of relatively stable relationship with nature that a society can look intra-society issues closely, fine-tuning social organisation/structure to improve the well-being of each members of that society. During this time, already existing institutions (e.g. shop keepers, sailers, Army&Navy) becomes more and more 'specialised', old social ties break off (e.g. family ties weakens as economic welfare of the whole society increases, political 'power' become associated to some economic criteria rather than traditional centres of age and sex (male usually). Moral values and religion (culture!), which tied each members of sciety so much together, becomes more and more abstract and generalised. Eventually those values are discarded by some, while 'traditionalists' held on to it. Society thus fragments and differentiates, at the same time forms a new social groups based on differential cultural values. Whether there is feeling of 'stress' attached to such new social entity making is something that I won't know, I'm afraid... But from the way I put it, such breaking off may not necessarily involve 'stress' in each 'individual' members, because newly formed social group members are probably looking forward to applying their, say, economically inspired cultural values to the challenges of their time. Old folks might just 'keep their mouth shut', because they too might realise that the time is changing and that new cultural values required (e.g. economic development, not family values - nuclear family structure, not tribal, feudal and large family!).
When there is extreme environmental stress too, new groups will try their new thinking into forming a new social structure with their new cultural values also at the heart of tackling such stress. Whoever best coped with the stress obviously places themselves in the most advantageous position to replace the old social structure and values.
I’ve done my best to follow, although I’m not an academic so your comments on sociology went whizzing over my head.
I take your point about the battle with nature being a source of anxiety – it’s just that I don’t think it’s the only one. However, when all our emotional needs for security are met I can still envisage some anxiety rumbling around – worrying about the day that never happened is something we can be very good at. Even when the table was replete with food we would still worry about having enough put by for winter I’m sure.
As regards our need to belong to things you seem to suggest an understanding of that will come from looking at the nature of these connections (political affiliations or whatever). My view is that we just have a primal need to belong to things – the more the merrier. Some connections are more intimate and intense and as such are better value for us (partner, family, workplace) whereas others help to fill the gaps (football team, bridge club). This is an ongoing quest – there will be very few people who think they have too many friends.
Belonging to something and feeling accepted gives us a sense of safety and wellbeing. We are in a bad way if we have too few connections (or when connections become hostile, like family break-ups or bullying in the workplace), as this is when suicide starts to become a solution. Perhaps in tribal times this is when we would side with the outsiders – those who would feel driven to leave.
For me what you are describing is the fact that, while 250 is the optimum grouping for a tribe we have to find ways of living in cities and nation states with millions of other people. What we seem to do is to find ways of being in smaller groups which are more manageable to us and which serve to relieve our stress. It makes sense to me that such groups can be amorphous things and still be effective at giving us a sense of focus and belonging (chat forums being a relatively new and eminently worthwhile way I have found).
”When there is extreme environmental stress too, new groups will try their new thinking into forming a new social structure with their new cultural values also at the heart of tackling such stress. Whoever best coped with the stress obviously places themselves in the most advantageous position to replace the old social structure and values.”
OK, so extremists flourish when there is environmental stress but just how significant is that in the overall scheme of things? What price Stalin and Hitler now? I stick with my view that it is the times of prosperity that are most significant in our development.
The difference between your theory and mine, I think, is in attributing casuality of social development to individual psychology or more socially and culturally maintained and distributed 'values' (e.g. workings of political power, economic dependency).
Firstly, I do agree with you that it is at the time of relative stability with Nature, then intra-socially, that social developemnt and fragmentation/differentiation takes place. This is the best time for any social groups and economically defined profession (e.g. shop keepers, stone masons) to become specialised. By specialisation and development of new 'ways of doing/making life', new social and cultural groups also appear and makes old social grouping based on traditional 'ways of making living' redundant.
Here, let me give an example. As society moved from Feudal system of living to capitalistic ways, Catholicism no longer able to provide a path to salvation in the changing economic and political climate of early-modern England. Hence the people in the position of power changed from religious institutions to economic institutions. This is a cultural and moral shift in people of England, and indeed the appearance of new social groupings and social fragmentation and development at the same time. Now the sense of anxiety to be with social groupings. Would it be due to the human psychology of being with a group that is the cause of it or would it be the more deeper, secureness that we find in thinking we, as individual, have a better chance of survival against the forces of mother Nature that is the 'real' cause, I don't know... Since humans have never been 100% secured independence with the mother Nature, I don't think we will never know...perhaps..
Secondly, at these moments of relative stability in human history, your argument, if I understood you correctly, places importance in the 'human nature' to stick to one another in a hope of more secure and socially and culturally 'better' life.
My take on this, as I stated earlier, is that we cannot even take human nature as 'given'. This is because, simply, we have never been completely detached our dependency with mother Nature and that there is 'no way of knowing' whether the 'human nature' of wanting to stick together with one another can be reduced to something deep within our selves or the necessity to secure our lives from the dangers that Nature throw at us. I don't think we can ever 'confirm' this. Thus it is better, at least for me, to keep looking for any explanation that offer better understanding into why humans develop the way they did and are. Another upshot of all of this is that if I were to accept the primacy of human behaviour to be attributable to human nature, then I'm gonna go out of work/studentship! meaning I can no longer study and research in detail the nature of human development from 'social' development perspective! Because, if it indeed were human nature, then there's nothing for me to study/discover! (Ok, so I am being cynical here, but this is just one implication of 'human nature' thesis...)
This understanding, of course, can only be 'proven' if we assume that the environment is of a crucial importance to our understanding of social organisation. In my view, it is.
The question, then, turns into 'how' we are going to 'prove' and 'justify' our theory: individual psychology or social explanation?
For now, let me just say that people everywhere are in a never-ending journey to find out exactly that.
One important notion that I would like to bring into focus is the importance of 'cultural' aspect of human life. Culture, in this sense, is the historically developed 'ideas' that define what is 'good' life. If we are living what we see as 'bad' life (e.g. poverty (definition of culture is also only an idea), moral deficiency; both are cultural).
Now, in this sense, we can see that the notion of stress against our take on a 'bad' life therefore also takes cultural dimension. Culture, as we know, is a socially developed 'thing' that cannot be attributed to human nature.
How could some people cope better with some situation without stress while others don't? It may be that the values that they have on the same situation may mean different things to different people and that such meaning is something that is contributing to this diffrence. People who has quite a relaxed values about his/her whole life might cope better in a situation of 'high stress', as defined by others, because their 'ideas' about 'bad' life, culturally defined, are not in tune with those who still see the same situation as highly stressful. If this is true, then even the notion of 'stress' must be explained in terms of cultural terms, not human psychology, I think.
Now, let me also turn to the question of Hitler and Stalin. While it is true, of course, that in capitalist societies, those figures are idealised as 'detrimental' to human development. BUT, it is also true that some people still are Maoists, Nazis and feel nostalgic about the Great Russian times of Stalin. In fact, Russians are known to be in love with the idea of their nation being militalily super-powerful, even if individuals might suffer at the end of it.
Thinking in this way, what is it that's still causes these 'fragmentation' of vaules, desires, as well as feeling of stress for not feeling fulfilled of their desires and hence, for some, wanting Stalinist regimes to return in Russia, for example?
I think that we cannot separate the 'practices'/'struggles' of everyday living to the notion of ideals, desires and values, and when they are not entirely fulfilled, stress.
I think, if people are poor, least educated and generally made to feel inferior to others because of it (say those Russians who are struggling under the capiltaist regime in Russia today and their living standard being looked-down upon by those newly formed capitalists in Russia and aborad of fellow capitalist societies), then they might feel great stress and wants Stalinist regime to be resumed. If my argument makes any sense, then they are more like 'social' reasons why people feel stressful, rather than human nature/psychology per se.
Hence, I think, it is still very hard to attribute everything to human nature of wanting to belong, rather than social casualities. In fact, it seems 'not' because their human nature that's wanting them specifically to attach to a grouping, but exactly the opposite. People wants to feel superior! That's classical notion of 'will to power' thesis! Individuals want people to 'prove' that it is 'him/her' who are better than others and other to appriciate such superiority!
Now the 'stress' is attributable not to the fact that people wants to attach to a social group, but want to control, to have a say in the whole organisation of social life (power!) in which they are so deeply embedded and have little control!!! In this sense, all humans are evil!!(sort of make sense..no wounder some people don't feel any sympathy towards those who feel stressed, but instead emphasis those stressed to get out and find and develop some skills that allow them to look superior to others!!)
It is still very hard to prove or disprove either human psychology or sociology thesis on the matter of stress and human development! Search must go on!
I'll need to have a good think before I reply. It is dealing with stuff I hadn't considered (but you obviously have) - so hold on and I'll get back to you.
OK, here goes (apologies for saying so much but I have an inkling I am running out of thoughts on the subject - which will be a relief to more than a few I reckon)
You have taken my post to mean that there is a mechanism, human nature, which pre-ordains our behaviour as individuals and in social groups – but I don’t actually see it that way at all. In no way are we in an anthill performing pre-ordained roles and tasks.
What I am saying is that our emotional make-up was set at an early stage in our development – nothing more than that. Yes, anxiety is problematic for lots of people but it is something we live with and work round as best we can.
I made the point that we as humans have to deal with inner anxieties and that forming bonds makes us feel secure. However the nature of this anxiety is that close connections can fail and love turns into hate.
I also made the observation that to have made it from one tribe in one place to thousands of tribes in thousands of places worldwide there needed to be a) an ability for a tribe to come together and work as co-operative and successful unit b) an ability for such tribes to fracture such that one tribe became two
I then made the proposal that anxiety was the mechanism involved and that stresses would occur when groups became too successful and hence too large causing such fractures.
If we go back in time before any empires or civilisations existed but there were tribes to be found at all corners of the globe, lets call this Point Zero, then I believe we would see humankind at it’s optimum. After that point things get complicated – big changes happen to the way we live but our emotional make-up is set. Referring back to the TV programme, we are not actually designed to be living in groups of larger than 250 so if you are examining political, religious or economic institutions, you are actually looking at fish out of water and that is perhaps why it is so difficult to make sense of it all.
I don’t think we differ psychologically from the way we were at Point Zero (we may be stronger and cleverer but emotionally we are the same – i.e. some improvements to the breeding stock but that’s about it) – the same Jungian personality types would be in evidence were Jung present to observe them. And that makes sense too – there are observable ways in which we are all the same, there are ways in which we share certain traits and there are ways in which we are unique(ish) – I really don’t see how this diminishes us in any way.
You are interested at changes in direction – why certain events in social history came about - some countries stayed catholic and some went protestant – some went capitalistic and some stayed feudal and some others went communist. These big change events do sound similar to the mechanism I am suggesting for tribes breaking up. When pressure is too high then something’s gotta give I guess. In the case of tribes however the splitting of tribes was a major step up in terms of our development. The stuff that happened later, the revolutions, do seem to be milestones along the way, part of an inexorable drive for things to get bigger and bigger. I wonder just how significant these will be in the long term – some paths may have been faster but we will probably all end up in the same place.
After Point Zero when tribes started to join up to form empires then we started on a rocky path. Tribes were no longer such a viable unit for protection – they would be too easily conquered by armies from colonising nations. Either form alliances or risk extinction. Not only that but we were living in bigger societies than we were designed to live in. So, since we were operating outside our design parameters I can’t see how you can you precisely analyse subsequent events trying to understand expected behaviours.
I don’t understand why you think mother nature is so important – dealing with mother nature is something that every species under the sun has to deal with so I don’t see how you think it is such a big part in making us pre-eminent.
Do I think that there is “importance in the 'human nature' to stick to one another in a hope of more secure and socially and culturally 'better' life.”? - No – we stick together because it is an imperative for us – we are not cut out for solitary existance in my view and more than horses can be left on their own without fretting and declining badly.
Regarding your comments on culture and the ‘good life’ - we have a need to feel secure – to overcome anxieties – relationship building, home building, status building are all part of that. To me culture seems to be about giving a veeneer to this although it does impart some comfort itself.
“The notion of 'stress' must be explained in terms of cultural terms, not human psychology, I think.” - ”How could some people cope better with some situation without stress while others don't?” - I did wonder if it was cultural and wondered about babies left to cry in their cots – wont they feel extremely abandoned and anxious? However, I don’t think it can be that since primitive tribes keep their babies with them and don’t leave them to cry.
“How significant is it that some people will be nostalgic for the downfall of repressive regimes?” - I think there are certain people destined to be the party faithful whether the state is liberal or authoritarian, communist or facist – others are born rebels.
”… poor, least educated and generally made to feel inferior to others….” – I don’t agree there is anything inherently more stressful in being poor and uneducated – it covers the whole spectrum. It isn’t the things I am denied or excluded from that are significant – it is solely what I belong to that matters - being rich doesn’t actually give me more of that.
”Now the 'stress' is attributable not to the fact that people wants to attach to a social group, but want to control” – I don’t agree with that – some are leaders and some are followers, but anxiety affects all personality types. This makes sense because if the tribe is going to split successfully you would want to take a mixture of personality types with you.
“The question, then, turns into 'how' we are going to 'prove' and 'justify' our theory: individual psychology or social explanation?” – we cant – but at least if the hypothesis is good enough then there is a chance that it can be worthy of proof or disproof..
And thanks again for your thoughtful comments! There are really good!
Ok, so now I feel I have started to understand your point of view, I think.
Before I go on, let me come back to your original comments from which our original discussion started.
"Could stress be an important contributor to our success as a species? The cradle of our race is in Africa. As primitive tribesmen we moved up through that continent, through Europe, Asia, the Americas and then to Australasia.
Taking a step back to see if there was some more natural explanation in terms of social behaviour, it would appear that two separate characteristics would have been needed - 1. A mechanism that brought us together in cohesive social groups – this is an easy one to understand and accept. But if that was as far as it went then we as a race would not have made it out of Africa. How did we end up with tribes all over the world? 2. I would propose there was another mechanism that caused successful tribes to splinter and breakaway tribes formed. This though would appear to be contrary to the first requirement."
Now, what I have been trying to figure out, with your argument as food for thought, was to think about the anxiety as a cause behind the successful social development, as you said. Thus, I went on to discuss whether human nature of wanting to belong to each other or culturally developed values that were the cause behind the social development, including successful differentiation and specialisation/dividion of labout that this notion of development entails.
But, when I read your last post, I got the impression that you are now refering 'anxiety' as an 'effect' of social development, something that is caused by an another mechanism behind a wider social development that simultaneously make them feel insecure. This is to turn our original discussion on its head.
Thus, your last comment that
"I then made the proposal that anxiety was the mechanism involved and that stresses would occur when groups became too successful and hence too large causing such fractures."
entails a contradiction that, while you wanted to show anxiety as the 'mechanism' for social differentiation, you have also said anxiety occurs AFTER social development takes place; in other words an 'effect' of social development.
Upshot of all of this is that if we want to show how society breaks up, then we must also show how society keeps themselves 'together'. Stress, leaves out the last question open. Thus it is conceivable that stress is 'caused' by social development some of the times, as an effect, but it does not explain why society should break up 'because' of it.
Therefore, I wanted to argue, that culture based on ideas of good life and good life that is based on the everyday 'struggle' better explain the real 'cause' behind the social development and fragmentation.
Thinking in this way, we can understand the essence of social development as thus
(1) Humand are 'pragmatic' being which make a sence of 'development' out of 'doing' things, like work, leisure, family life improvement, etc etc. Thus, if we want to feel good about our life, then we should do things 'better'. (2) In order to do things 'better', more effectively and efficiently, then, we must specialise. This is the reason behind, for example, economic dividion of labour. We can imagine that if we are made to live in a distant island somewhere in the middle of Atlantic away from any civilisation, alone individually, then we cannot be wearing as nice cloths, having tasty food as much as we are collaborating together, each of us specialised in improving different things and making those specific things done better. (3) BUT since our sence of 'development' comes from doing things, if we look at this from individual's point of view, we can see that the 'effect' of specialisation/development leads us to live increasingly separate life (which is defined by what we 'do'/'specialise') from one another. Thus, stone masons have little things to say or feel attached to from those who are specialised in, say, a king's librarians. (4) Yet, in trying to keep the 'whole' society together, morally bound, then such morality must become very abstract and generalised to be able to cover 'all' specialised groups of people. (5) The overall effect is that, from a stone mason's perspective, he feel his moral values are incompatible/irrelevant with those of librarians and almost everybody else as society become larger and the percentage of people specialised in stone masonary becomes less and less compared with the sum of all others.
If above has any truth attached to it, then it is not that society develops and fragments because of anxiety, but anxiety is an after-effects of development, not the cause.
The conclusion is that a theory which takes stress as a cause for social development and fragmentation must also provide an explanation of why society successfully 'grows' at the same time.
OK – I’m clear in my own head what I mean but I need to try harder to articulate it I think.
Anxiety is definitely the cause here – I’m clear on that (I’m not actually aware that I said anything to contradict that – did I?) . It isn’t an aberrant condition - without it we would never have made it out of Africa. Actually that isn’t true – without it we would have been supplanted by cousins who did have anxiety as a trait.
I disagree that we would have moved out of Africa because someone decided it would be a good idea but probably because some faction was banished and set up home elsewhere.
Such splits would have been traumatic and risky - they can’t have happened because life looked better somewhere else, so I don’t accept your ‘good life’ theory.
All of your points (1) – (5) refer to development which could only have happened after Point Zero (as I cutely named it in my last post). For instance, the notion of early primitive people coming to the decision that they should better themselves is an oxymoron.
And the specialisation or roles in primitive people would only have been the different roles for men and women, the old and the young – a long way from the economic division of labour you refer to.
My point is that when we reached Point Zero we were as developed emotionally as we were ever going to be – we had done the hard part – the rest was just end-game – our capacity to be clever and inventive was already in place, even if we were still primitive – improvements happened as a matter of course, not because people decided things should be made better.
Firstly, because 'anxiety' happens after a social development as AN 'effect' (surely not all effects?), but not necessarily the cause, there is no way for us to know it is definitely the 'anxiety' factor alone which is the cause.
Perhaps, in my view, and this is my second point, the enviromental factor/change is important. It is a fairly known fact that the climate change was the most significant factor which drove the early humans to move along the river Nile to Egypt. Before that, people were living in a largely forested area in where is now the Sahara deseart. Again, stress is not the single most efficient cause for getting out of Africa. Once they got to North Africa and found forests so that then they went on hunting into Europe, then Asia, then wherever to Austrasia. Many places are land-bridged then.
Again, the environmental factors are very important and shows how 'human' development can also be attributed to environmental factors.
Thirdly, even in their movement through forests to Europe and then on, driven largely by environmental factors, humans can 'learn' and develop new skills, like discovering fire and farming to making new tools to creating a position of religious leadership. Again, specialisation, though very slowly at this time, could have and did happen in and out of Africa. This means, of course, smaller tribes might happily separated from one other, say one remained in Africa and another group went into Europe ways without feeling too stressful. Those who can travel might be happy to try to test out their new ways of living. If stress was involved at all, then, again, it is effects of fragmenting/social development into Europe, and 'not' because of it.
Had read Damasio's "Descartes' Error" and fascinated by how accident, causing damage to Gage's brain resulted in change in type of language produced in patient.
This show is great, I can't wait for next week.
filosofee ps will read all comments here fully at a later date, when I have time to digest ideas posited :-)
“Firstly, because 'anxiety' happens after a social development as AN 'effect' (surely not all effects?), but not necessarily the cause, there is no way for us to know it is definitely the 'anxiety' factor alone which is the cause.”
You are absolutely right – there is no way to pin down anxiety – that’s why anxiety is so glibly put down to fight and flee. That doesn’t mean we can’t put together a convincing enough explanation based on conjecture. For example, if we have no food we are not anxious about it – we are hungry pure and simple. Anxiety is irrational – we feel anxious about things that might happen – not the things that are happening. There are good reasons why we evolved with the limbs we have (or at least conjectured reasons) – why shouldn’t there be a good reason why we are prone to be anxious?
“the enviromental factor/change is important. It is a fairly known fact that the climate change was the most significant factor which drove the early humans to move along the river Nile to Egypt. Before that, people were living in a largely forested area in where is now the Sahara deseart. Again, stress is not the single most efficient cause for getting out of Africa. Once they got to North Africa and found forests so that then they went on hunting into Europe, then Asia, then wherever to Austrasia. Many places are land-bridged then.”
So, you are saying the tribe moved out of Africa on a migration which ended in Australasia? But, they must have left outposts on their journey since Africa wasn’t left empty was it? I’m afraid that just doesn’t wash - it would mean that primitive man mounted an expeditionary force that would have put 19th century explorers to shame.
“Again, the environmental factors are very important and shows how 'human' development can also be attributed to environmental factors.“ – Again I have to disagree – environmental factors might explain how a tribe from Place A ended up in the unpopulated Place B. But for this to work we need to find an explanation why we ended up with a tribe in Place A and another in Place B – environmental factors most assuredly don’t explain that.
“smaller tribes might happily separated from one other, say one remained in Africa and another group went into Europe ways without feeling too stressful. Those who can travel might be happy to try to test out their new ways of living. If stress was involved at all, then, again, it is effects of fragmenting/social development into Europe, and 'not' because of it.”
This “happily separate” is a massive leap of faith (every bit as big as my anxiety theory – I would say bigger) and one that doesn’t ring true to me – just exactly how would a single tribe happily become two? And not once but many thousands of times.
For this to have worked the North American plains indians must have sent off tribe representatives which set up homes in Central America – and these happy events just rippled down through South America until getting to Australasia. Such happiness would have made a great Walton’s episode but hardly has the real ring of truth about it – you can’t really think it happened that way.
I’m sorry but happiness just doesn’t do it for me – there has to have been some kind of imperative. There has to have been some process where sections of the tribe felt compelled to leave and try their luck in some other location.
I think we are nearing our capacity to be creative.
But let me just say this.
All along, what I wanted to show is not that stress does not occur as result of human 'evolution' (doesn't necessarily mean development it seems to me now), but that stress as the sole mechanism for explanation requires, as we noted, a great leap of faith.
Of course, it can be a factor of human evolution, there is no denying that. But to say that stress, as 'effects' of human evolution, is the main mechanism is to ignore all other forms of evolution, like creativity and discovery.
In this sense, to me, your argument is like listening to Karl Marx's. He noted that all signs of human development can be 'read off' from the 'effects' of human behaviour, effectively.
Yet, humans are also 'masters' of their own life. This means that humans can create a condition within which they feel their environment can be controlled and their happiness and creativity to be felt and flourished, respectively.
"Men (sic) make their own history but not under the circumstances of their own choosing" Karl Marx.
Marx of course stressed the inevitabiliy of outside (structural) forces, always pushing people along their fate, unable ever to be controlled by them. People will therefore be always anxious, recognising that the only way for them to survive was to resist and struggle, especially for the poor. They, the people, were always anxious and feeling stressed, literally!...A tad bit sad for me and I cannot believe that...
No, we can change, we can control, and we can be happy in the face of change and have hope. Sure we do struggle, at times, but people can believe in their own self, in controlling their own lives and destiny and, no in the least, be merry!
Wow, how the hell did Marx get into this – 4 times in your last post if I was inclined to start counting. I would have preferred that you could have dealt with what I actually said rather than try to voice off out against some discredited dead philosopher that you seem to have a problem with. I am guessing here that you have neo-conservative tendencies – but that’s no matter. If you insist then be merry too – why the hell not.
Alright, alright! Don't be cheeky! I don't think I am a neo-con or anything... I just want people to be happy!
So, having noted our last communication and my last post,
"That doesn’t mean we can’t put together a convincing enough explanation based on conjecture. For example, if we have no food we are not anxious about it – we are hungry pure and simple. Anxiety is irrational – we feel anxious about things that might happen – not the things that are happening. There are good reasons why we evolved with the limbs we have (or at least conjectured reasons) – why shouldn’t there be a good reason why we are prone to be anxious?"
The problem with your comment, at least for me, is in insisting that in making anxious being 'irrational', you can 'never' be able to come up with any conjecture for it!!! Irrational is irrational!!
No, I think anxiety occurs for reason, NON-rational one (we can call this cultural, if you like)and not 'irrational' ones, worrying about things which people as individual have no control (I still think here you need Marx! By the way, many people respect Marx, not just communists or anti-communists. But I guess this is difficult for people to know.. And I am not communists or neo-con or anti-communist!). Structural forces for Marx, context for action for others. Still others will call it 'institutional' factors.
Let's by way of example pick an anxiety; say 'being alone'. But linking 'anxiety' to 'being on your' own presuppose that this person once 'were' in a social group, thus knowing what its like to be in a social group, he feels anxious about not be able to do what he could have done if he were with lots of friends. Imagine you have not many friends all your life. Then when you said
"Some connections are more intimate and intense and as such are better value for us (partner, family, workplace) whereas others help to fill the gaps (football team, bridge club). This is an ongoing quest – there will be very few people who think they have too many friends."
we can ask 'too many of what kind of friends'? I certainly think I have too many stupid friends, too many expensive friends! But then again, if I were to think that having 1 (one!) best friends be enough, then I can be very happy in deed! Some people were extreamly happy marrying the first love that they know.. Again, anxiety all come back to what you are used to and thinking about how things could have be otherwise, 'already' having the knowledge to do better! 'Ignorance is a bless' as a wise man would say!
This means, of course, that we can learn from one another, some seeing a benefit of doing one thing and learning artistically, some others learns scientifical side of things. They we have different specialisation to take place, new skills created, people gets happy to apply those new skills elsewhere! There's nothing wrong with that!
Another quote of yours goes thus
“Again, the environmental factors are very important and shows how 'human' development can also be attributed to environmental factors.“ – Again I have to disagree – environmental factors might explain how a tribe from Place A ended up in the unpopulated Place B. But for this to work we need to find an explanation why we ended up with a tribe in Place A and another in Place B – environmental factors most assuredly don’t explain that."
The problem with yours in this sense is that you neglect 'everything else' that 'can' happen in the 'process' of going from A to B! What happens about creativity and discovery? Could we easily imagine a case where some social groups develop adequate tools best to survive in more foresty but prentiful of hunting to do, while others develop better skills in fishing than the others, so they move to the coastal areas? What if people get better at surviving in the mountaneous area with lots of little streams than those better coped to handle drier more deserts-like condition? All those social groups remains or moved to different places! What's wrong with these explanation of exploratory tendency in humans! Much merrier for sure!, while not neglecting some becoming anxious. People must have been feeling so excited, don't you think, to move on to new environments trying out new skills that they developed and tested out, help exploring! Fantastic! I would love that!
Now, hopefully, your comment
"This “happily separate” is a massive leap of faith (every bit as big as my anxiety theory – I would say bigger) and one that doesn’t ring true to me – just exactly how would a single tribe happily become two? And not once but many thousands of times."
becomes less of a leap of faith than three posts ago...!
While, your conclusion
"I’m sorry but happiness just doesn’t do it for me – there has to have been some kind of imperative. There has to have been some process where sections of the tribe felt compelled to leave and try their luck in some other location."
assumes that we can only live under 1 (one!) condition, environmentally, and if this condition cannot be met, then we will all die off!
Fair enough – if you stop being dismissive then I will do my very level best to stop being cheeky – which won’t be easy – its just my nature
“we can ask 'too many of what kind of friends'?”
That comment was totally peripheral to the point I was making – trust you to pick up on it. I’ll need to be more careful obviously. People can be loners and get on alright – they obviously have ways of coping.
However, anxiety can be pretty bad news if you don’t know how to deal with it – mental health is a serious issue for many.
I don’t disrepect Marx or his observations on class, but his scientific approach wasn’t really very scientific, I mean, was it? (well, no more scientific than mine for sure) and his predictions for the demise of capitalism certainly haven’t panned out.
“insisting that in making anxious being 'irrational', you can 'never' be able to come up with any conjecture for it!!!” I did’t mean that the way it came out - to the individual it is irrational – certainly unwanted – what I’m trying to do is find the rationality of anxiety
”I think anxiety occurs for reason” ”Let's by way of example pick an anxiety; say 'being alone'. But linking 'anxiety' to 'being on your' own presuppose that this person once 'were' in a social group, thus knowing what its like to be in a social group, he feels anxious about not be able to do what he could have done if he were with lots of friends. Imagine you have not many friends all your life.”
Yes, there are reasons behind axiety – I myself went into analysis in order to understand my anxieties so I fully accept that. However to find these reasons you have to go back to your formative years – it isn’t a matter of simple cause and effect, like suddently finding yourself on your own and not liking it. For example, people who were not well nurtured as a child will have difficulties in forming relationships in later life.
A monkey who has had a normal upbringing from it’s mother will thrive a lot better than those who just have a picture of an adult monkey and a bit of fur to stroke (seriously, this was done as an experiment). However, these latter ones do a lot better than those who are raised with no mother figure at all. For me, this all says volumes about the nature of anxiety. Horses are another case – a horse on its own will decline badly but put a sheep in with it and it will perk up.
So yes, an individual can indeed look for reasons behind his or her anxiety but that doesn’t tell us why we humans have anxiety there at all and why it works the way it does.
With horses it clearly benefits the species as a protective mechanism so I don’t think I’m on too much of a limb in suggesting the same kind of thing for humans.
”The problem with yours in this sense is that you neglect 'everything else' that 'can' happen in the 'process' of going from A to B! What happens about creativity and discovery? Could we easily imagine a case where some social groups develop adequate tools best to survive in more foresty but prentiful of hunting to do, while others develop better skills in fishing than the others”
This is all true but I have taken it as a given – any breakaways that didn’t accrue the necessary skills to survive in their new environment would have perished.
“People must have been feeling so excited, don't you think, to move on to new environments trying out new skills that they developed and tested out, help exploring! Fantastic! I would love that!”
I’m sorry but I can’t agree with that - we are not talking about people setting off on a sunny day with a packed lunch. Existence would have been a very tenuous thing ten thousand years ago – a day to day fight for survival.
”assumes that we can only live under 1 (one!) condition, environmentally, and if this condition cannot be met, then we will all die off! “
They evdently did adapt to the most extremes of climate from the Artic to hottest Africa. Which makes sense since they could hardly just catch a bus somewhere else if the weather didn’t suit.
