Re: Gould Evolution big book

I hate to be the only publication of this theory, but here "it" is.

Jim McGinn   Jan 13 2003, 11:55 pm     show options
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
From: jimmcg...@xxxxxxxxx (Jim McGinn) - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Jan 2003 20:55:02 -0800
Local: Mon,Jan 13 2003 11:55 pm
Subject: Lorenzo's Challenge: a poll

"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

> > "In the old days being psychotic meant something.
> > Nowadays everybody's psychotic."
> >                                   Lorenzo Love

> I think that this demonstrates that McGinn is even
> more prone to misattributing quotes then Verhaegen
> ever was.

Doh!

> Lets have a poll: Does anyone understand McGinn's
> mishmash of plagiarized social theory and
> idiosyncratic definitions of common terms?

Thanks Lorenzo,

Allow me to facilitate the process:

Below are two posts that, if you read slowly and
carefully, should give you all a good idea of what
I'm getting at.  The first one was put on this NG a
few days ago.  It's entitled: "Mob-oriented fits and
tantrums, not calculated tool usage."  The second one
and is entitled: ECOLOGICAL GATEKEEPER HYPOTHESIS.  
This is the breakthrough post.  It was first put on
this NG last summer.

Before we get into it it's important to first
divorce yourself from the assumptions of conventional
theory.  (Not easy to do, I know, but it basically
comes down to keeping an open mind.)  Be aware of the
following elements in this scenario:  
1) The onset of a climate characterized by seasonal
dessication (a distinct and severe dry season).  
2) Patchiness of their treed habitat (they were
isolated at these patches of treed habitat such that
if they ventured out into the surrounding treeless
habitat they'd be eaten by predators).
3) The adoption of a strategy that involves communal
territorialism (the reasons for this [depletion of
resources as the result of inmigration of other
herbivores and omnivores] will be explained).
4) Group selection (the specifics of which will be
explained).

(Note: It might be a good idea to print all of this
out, read it the first time just to get these four
elements clear in your head, and then read it again
trying to construct the whole scenario in your mind.)

Also I want to warn you that this is a relatively
complex hypothesis.  You will have to juggle a lot of
assumptions at once to comprehend this hypothesis.  
Those who are disinclined to the effort involved with
such will find reading this hypothesis frustrating.  

Lastly, be forwarned, those that make dismissive
comments will be dispatched with accordingly and
with a certain amount of glee.  But, if you make
an honest effort to understand what is being said
herein your understanding of hominid/human evolution
will be forever changed.

Thanks again LL

Jim

****************************** ****************************** *****

Mob-oriented fits and tantrums, not calculated tool usage

no_...@xxxxxxxx (Curious Amateur) wrote

> > I think with hominids there was a different cause
> > and it has to do with territorialism, including
> > mob-oriented, rock throwing, stick waving behavior
> > against inmigrating species that would compete with
> > them for finite resources in a habitat characterized
> > by seasonal dryness as the main selective factor.

> I'm sure it's a factor, but the troop can't be
> everywhere at once. Invasion can occur while the
> troop is elsewhere in its territory.

You are missing the point.  See if you can follow this
argument:

Let's say a community (comprised of multiple troops) just
happens to have behaviors that reduce inmigration of
grazing species by 10%.  The resulting moderate reduction
in rate of resource depletion over several months may be
all that is needed for their to be enough resources
available to prevent the community from breaking down
during the depths of the dry season into an every man for
himself (or every troop for itself) infighting in which
the predators move in, find easy pickings, and decimate
the community.  Accordingly, members of communities that
have said behaviors will survive in higher numbers than
members of communities that lack said behaviors, and they
will pass these behaviors on to their offspring.  Members
of communities that lack said behaviors will be more
likely to end up as an easy meal for leopards, lions,
hyenas, and such during the dry season, or simply starving
to death.  And this will be true regardless of whether
or not the members of this community have any conscious
understanding as to the net effect of said behaviors (which
they certainly could not have had in the earliest years of
hominid evolution).  

This is really just plain old natural selection.  The only
think peculiar about it is that it is a group selective
scenario.  And this group selective aspect is reinforced
by the patchiness of the treed habitat in that a member of
a community has little choice but to stick it out.  They
can't just walk away without putting themselves at greater
risk out in the no-man's land of treeless, predator-filled
habitat that surrounded these isolated community sites.

This is how HUMAN evolution got the kickstart that
eventually lead to what we are now.  (Note: HUMAN
evolution is a group selective process.  From the
perspective of comparative biology, this couldn't be
more obvious.  Anybody that tells you differently is
whacked.  You can safely dismiss *any* scenarios that
don't explicate a group selective process.)

> > > It is most unlikely that these animals ever carried
> > > rocks around much, and certainly not with any
> > > long-term "plan" for using them against predators.

> > Agreed.  It's important to keep in mind that the
> > original hominids had the mentality of 3 to 5 year
> > olds.  

> Just what does that mean: "the mentality of 3 to 5"?

It means that the ancestral behavior of the earliest
hominids more closely resembled mob-oriented fits and
tantrums than it did calculated tool usage.  From the
perspective of potential inmigrating herding species,
these were nothing but pesky critters who would start
screaming like babies if one ever should venture into
'their' treed habitat, drawing the attention of
predators.  Needless to say, inmigrating species came
to realize that these rock throwing, stick wielding,
loud mouthed, mob oriented, little pricks (like the
adversaries of AAT in this NG) were best avoided.  

> How much life experience does a 3-5 year old have
> compared to the hominids you are describing? A 3-5
> year old would be unable to survive back then.

Instincts, incredible strength, and habitat that
was, most times of the year, fairly lush was all
they needed.  Life experience was mostly unnecessary.

> > Besides, it was unneccessary.  The resided at
> > a situated and isolated treed location, community
> > site, where rocks were plentiful.

> An attractive assumption.

I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption.  And,
of course, if the rocks ever ran out there was
alway dirt clods :)

> > Bipedalism is, primarily, a throwing adaptation.  

> Bipedalism advanced too many abilities to be
> limited to one primary ability, unless that
> ability is locomotion (superior to knuckle-walkers).

>>From a locomotory standpoint bipedalism was a compromise.  
The shift to a more communal and stationary lifestyle
deemphasized locomotion.  

> If chimps can throw as well as described, we have
> to rule out bipedalism as a cause.

Chimps suck at throwing.  And they aren't any better at
batting.  And it's just about impossible to get them to
keep a mit on. :)  

If they did evolve along the lines that I describe, we'd
expect those that were most successful to be capable of
maintaining larger and larger pieces of territory.  And
this, IMO, would predict a trend of throwing longer
distances in that this would be the most efficient
way to keep potential trespassing species at bay.  
(This, of course, assumes that they didn't yet have
barbed wire :)

Jim

****************************** ****************************** *

ECOLOGICAL GATEKEEPER HYPOTHESIS: an
addendum the Ideological Ape Hypothesis

This addendum resolves a significant shortcoming that
I had with the larger hypothesis.  Strangely enough, it
was only after I had hit upon this addendum that it even
occurred to me that my larger hypothesis had this
shortcoming.  (Talk about falling in love with one's own
pet theory.)  What was the shortcoming?  It has to do
with the transition from the chimpanzee lifestyle (small,
rambling bands) to the more situated, property oriented,
communalism.  I had assumed the transition would have
been natural, a direct result of implications associated
with the change in environmental conditions (seasonal
dessication, patchiness of the remaining forested habitat,
etc.).

It turns out I was right.  It was natural.  But I was wrong
to have assumed that it would have been (or could have
been) just as simple as that.  More specifically, I had them
cooperating, communicating, (In the context of a situated
community) and evolving consciousness before they really
had an evolutionary upramp to begin being selected for
such behaviors.  With this addendum I think this problem
is solved.  Additionally, this addendum provides a better
understanding of why and how bipedalism and manipulative
abilities began to be selected in the earliest years of
hominid evolution.  Additionally it seems to explain the
human predisposition for sports fanaticism and the human
tendency to be confrontational to and otherwise controlling
of other species.

Let me begin by showing you two posts that triggered
my thinking:

****************************** *************************
>>From sci.bio.paleontology:

<snip>

 . . . about 10mln years ago the Earth entered climatic
roller-coaster, with periods of advancing and retreating
glaciation.  <snip>

<snip>

 . . . . the very fact that the Earth became a colder and
more inhospitable place to live, led to the creation of
man, so we shouldn't complain too loudly about how
cold it is outside. If the Earth were still warm and wet,
then we'd just have big, dumb, lumbering creatures
who would just eat easy-to-find plants all day long --
doesn't require the development of much intelligence.

<snip>

Yousuf Khan

****************************** *************************
>>From sci.bio.evolution:

I fail to understand why people are sports fans.
They spend a lot of money, and they yell and
scream when their home-town football team wins.
When they move to another town they just as
ardently yell and scream for their new home-town
team, although the new team may have been the
opponent of the previous team.

This behavior seems to defy rational analysis.
Why scream and yell, anyway, just because a
bunch of millionaires beat each other up in a
public arena?

Is this behavior possibly a leftover from eons
ago when it was important (a survival factor)
to look up to tribal leaders, to cheer them on,
and to claim solidarity with them?

It seems to me that, in this day and age,
evolution would favor survival factors in the
intellectual arena, and yet, here are these
masses of people who get excited about
strangers who beat each other up, as in
football..

Can anyone explain the phenomenon?

Walter

****************************** *************************

The relevance of this second post will become
obvious once you get into this explanation.  The first of
these two posts is the most important.  It really jarred
my perspective into considering something I hadn't
considered before: previous to 10mya there was little
or no migration but there has been a lot since then.
(I'm thinking mostly of relatively large mammals here.
Let's say about the size of a housecat and bigger.  But
it really includes any and all species that migrate.)
I started to wonder if there might not be more than a
coorelation between the observation that hominids
appeared at or about at the same time that large
mammals started to become migratory. Might it be
causal?  In other words, might an environment that is
characterized by migrating species be an environment
that provides selective factors that triggered hominid
evolution?

With this question in mind, I started thinking about
migration in the context of the environmental
assumptions of my hypothesis: seasonal dessication,
spatial polarity of resources (patches of forest that
persist near sources of perrenial water, lakes, ponds,
streams, rivers, areas of high ground water).  (For a
more comprehensive description of the environmental
assumptions of this hypothesis see a post I put on this
newsgroup recently entitled: Questions Regarding
Selective . . . )  Then I asked myself what kind of
migrational patterns would I expect given these
assumptions.  The answer was obvious.  During
periods increasing dessication and resulting scarcity
there would be a tendency for all of the species in this
environment to begin to migrate toward and into these
treed havens, our ancestor's "community sites." And
with the onset of the rainy season they would migrate
back out again.

Then I started thinking about how all of this would
appear from the perspective of our earliest, recently
rainforest dwelling, prehominid ancestors.  Every year
their patches of remaining forest, their "community
sites," got overrun with other species.  Many of these
species would have competed directly with them for
food and thus would have caused the depletion of
resources at a time when these resources were
increasingly scarce, the dry season.  Other herbivores
may not have directly competed with them, but all of
them brought predators with them: lions, tigers, hyenas,
dogs, etc.  The negative implications are obvious.
When these inmigrating species had depleted the
resources at these community sites they would simply
migrate over to other less depleted areas (other
community sites). But our tree dwelling ancestors,
being less mobile, had fewer options.  They were
now left vulnerable to starvation and/or predation.
Lacking the ability to run fast, they didn't have much
choice but to stay put, wait out the predators, and
hope the rains returned. Surely their population would
often have been decimated as a result.

Among a number of other adaptations, which I will get
to shortly, I predict that territorial based peskiness will
have begun to be selected among our chimpanzee-like
ancestor.  This would have been a direct result of the
above described factors associated with migration.
The reason I believe this scenario predicts the relatively
rapid adaptation of territorial based peskiness behaviors
among these still tree dwelling apes is because apes
that have such predisposition will tend to harass any other
animals that it percieves to be trespassing on its territory.
This will act as a deterent to these inmigrating species
who--all other things being equal--will follow the path of
least resistance to their migratory goals. If one patch of
forest is associated with pesky apes--regardless of the
fact that these pesky apes may be mostly harmless to
them--and another patch of forest is relatively free of
pesky apes then the inmigrating individuals would follow
the path of least resistance to the patch that is relatively
free of pesky apes.

More specifically, how and why do I contend that these
above mentioned implications predict the rapid
adaptation of territorial peskiness amongst our earliest
prehominid ancestors?  I think the answer to this
question is fairly obvious.  The members of community
sites that reduced inmigration, even if only marginally
(let's say, for example, they reduced it by only 10%),
would increase their own community's probability of
surviving through and, at one and the same time, reduce
the probability of survival of those who reside at other,
neighboring, community sites who, lacking territorial
based peskiness behaviors, would now have to deal
with more inmigration and, of course, more of the
negative implications thereof: more depletion of
resources, more predators, and more resulting
decimation.

This comprises a classic group selectionist scenario:
behavior that increases one's own communities survival
decreases the survival of other communities.  This is
not to say that the members of these respective
communities would have had the ability to recognize
that they were competing against other communities
on a community vs. community basis.  In fact it seems
unlikely--especially in the earliest years of hominid
evolution--that they would have even had the ability to
recognize that they were members of communities.
Regardless of wether they were capable of realizing it,
apes that had whatever behavior and/or morphology
that would enable or cause them to dissuade other
species from migrating into their community site would
have a tremendous selective advantage over those that
lacked such. The more their behavior dissuaded
inmigration the greater the selective advantage to their
own community and the greater the selective
disadvantage to neighboring communities.

It is, of course, normal to be hesitant about asserting
group selective factors such as those that I have
asserted here.  But in the context of this scenario this
hesitancy is, I contend, completely unwarranted.  This
contention is based on the group selective implications
of the two factors mentions above, 1) the patchiness of
the remaining forested habitat which divided our
ancestors up into "communities" between which gene
flow (interbreeding) was greatly reduced, and 2) the
fact that the grim reaper,seasonal dessication, focussed
on whole communities whose territorial resources at
their community sites had become, for whatever reason,
deplete. So, the selective realities of our ancestors
shifted from those of the chimpanzee lifestyle--focussed
only on being successful individuals and members of
successful breeding groups (bands, extended family
units)--to those of the A'pith lifestyle--focussed on being
successful individuals and members of successful
breeding groups AND on being members of communities
that successfully effect the preservation of resources at
their community sites in the face of the onslaught of
multi-species inmigration to their community sites.

It is also important to point out that there is a positive
feedback aspect associated with inmigration.  Specifically
this has to do with the herding or grouping instincts of the
inmigrating species: if one or a few members of an
inmigrating species is able to infiltrate a community site
then the probability is higher that more members of the
same species, and/or members of ecologically related
species, will follow.  When this aspect is considered in
conjunction with the fact that this scenario clearly
indicates the community as the group entity that is being
selected, it is apparent, I contend, that the better a
community is at closing the gate of its ecosystem--sealing
its borders--the more likely the members of the community
will survive the grim reaper of this habitat, seasonal
dessication (the dry season).

In the context of these peculiar selective factors, we can
start to ask ourselves what other adaptations, in addition
to territorial peskiness, would we expect to evolve?  This
can be more explicitly delineated in the context of what
is mentioned in the above paragraph: what additional
behaviors or morphologies would cause/enable these
chimpanzee-like territorially pesky apes to be better able
and/or more inclined to "close the gate" and effectively
seal the borders of their community sites?  I propose the
following:

Cooperation (in the context of mob oriented harassing
behaviors): The tendency to confront and attempt to prevent
inmigrating species collectively rather than just individually.
This would involve collecting into larger groups from
neighboring and other closely situated "properties" (see
below) within a community site and confronting inmigrating
species: throwing rocks, sticks, and generally making a big
racket.  As I envision it, this would involve the same kind of
emotion based behaviors that we currently associate with a
mob mentality, including sports fanaticism.

Communicativeness:
        The ability to communicate the relative level of threat
associated with potential inmigrating species so that mobs
can form at vulnerable infiltration points quickly and efficiently.
This also involves such behaviors as cheering, booing, and
other behaviors that would tend to draw attention of other
members of a community to such events.

Consciousness:
        Awareness of the meaning of emotional outbursts that
they might see or hear in the distance so that one might be
excited into being additive to whatever mob oriented
activities are taking place in one's vicinity. Awareness of the
property of others due to the implications of the, below
mentioned, selective benefits of property oriented communal
territorialism.

Property Oriented Communal Territorialism (rather than
just communally oriented territorialism):
        Property oriented communal territorialism involves a
community being comprised of subgroups each of which
has its associated property in the context of the larger
community site. The reason, I contend, that we would
predict property oriented territorialism is because this
would, firstly, cause them--by way of their percieved
incentive--to spread out to the different infiltration points of
the community site so that they will be in position to better
effect the collective sealing of the community sites borders.
Secondly, property oriented territorialism will give them the
percieved incentive to defend "their" property.  (Which, as
indicated above, could also include calling out to one's
neighboring property holders for assitance to effect a mob
and/or responding to one's neighbors call for assistance.)
The particular group that I envision as the entity that
maintains ownership of the different intracommunal
"properties" of a community site would be based upon the
band or extended family unit, similar in size and
composition to that of the bands that extant chimpanzees
tend to form.

Gamesmanship:
        I think it's possible that the behavior that is
indicated in this hypothesis was to they themselves
little more than a game.  Those who were passionate
about the game achieved the survival of themselves
and their whole community (by way of driving off
inmigrating species).  (In other words, we're descended
from sports enthusiasts.)

Also, this scenario gives us a sense of how and why we
evolved to be so controlling of other species.  It even
suggests how we began to develop our weapon oriented
hunting skills and inclination, not to mention our weapon
oriented and mob oriented approach to intraspecies
conflicts (war).  (I can foresee there being "Hunting
Hypothesis," variants of this hypothesis.)

Additionally, this scenario is the perfect setup for the
scenario in my larger hypothesis (which I now realize is
much more dependent upon the pre-existence of a
community), which better explains the evolution of other
hominid traits, such as our political, ideological nature,
our attentiveness to dance, art, storytelling, and other
artistic, our economic predisposition for trade, our
complex and logic oriented languages, and our pursuit
of knowledge and truth.  However, the beginning of the
dynamics in my greater hypothesis (the Intraspecies
Capitalism stuff which is very difficult to explain), may
have to be pushed forward in time all the way up to the
transition to homo.  But this may be a good thing in that
it better coorelates to the growth of brain capacity in the
homo lineage (which, as you know, is greatly lacking in
the A'pith lineage).

Regards to all,

Jim

"Lorenzo can no more see his own folly than he can see
his ears."
                   William Makepeace Thackeray

.

Relevant Pages

  • [Full-disclosure] RE: Exploits Selling / Buying
    ... anything of this kind!I saw some posts.. ... Regarding the benefits of the community from this service we could ... >I joined the irc server to take a look around: ... >n4=irc2.exploits.cx BG Exploits Buyers Network ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Congratulations Bad Cog
    ... > It's unlikely that folks such as The Sex Pistols or The Who or Iggy Pop> would have made all that lasting an impression if they decided to become> poster-boys of old world manner and civility. ... > I think BC's posts sort of swept down on this newsgroup in much the same> manner that NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS eked its way out of my bedroom stereo> speakers. ... > And I'm not knocking this "community" aspect of this place. ... > long before hitting us up for food-bank donations and saying catchy> phrases such as "Nobody wins unless everybody wins". ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Proposed Process for Charter Amendment
    ... >> of serving the community doesn't match yours, ... >> moderator for a while and see if it's so simple? ... to the detriment of this newsgroup. ... I don't see that assumtion in your posts. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Things I Learned/Misc Thoughts from RSG Ohio 2007 (course managementmisfire?)
    ... Your misunderstanding of frequency matching), ... There is no community here. ... You may have a PhD, but as far as I can tell from your posts, you are ... And here's the crux of your problem with me. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Gartner Report Thread Administrivia
    ... We're getting to the point where most of the posts relating to the Gartner ... members of the ID community is sour. ... world's premier technical IT security event! ...
    (Focus-IDS)