Re: Humans "unique" social


"William Morse" <wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dejkgc$29di$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:degtg4$194p$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>>> "Anthony Cerrato" <tcerrato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:dcu6kn$262e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>> Is human sociality really unique, or is it simply an
>>>> extension of the herding instinct of many animals which was
>>>> originally developed for protection and honed by evolution.
>
> (snip)
>
>> In the context of modern society, the eclectics of risk vs. advantage
>> give way to something of a, "What would I like to do this morning, or
>> the rest of my life, instead of eating another of those endless snacks
>> awaiting my beck and call, or sitting down and just twiddling my
>> thumbs while time slips away?"
>>
>> What have social affiliations (and corresponding activity advantages
>> and disadvantages... such as little schedule-juggling annoyances) to
>> do with what occurs with herding animals and herds, where survival
>> lies in the balance?
>
> An excellent question, and what is _your_ answer. I would say that the
> group joining proclivity of humans is a relic of an earlier time when
> survival was in the balance. As opposed to other herd animals, humans
> refined the proclivity to reflect similar interests, thus making the
> groupings more productive. But much of the fine tuning may be culturally
> controlled - i.e. humans may have a genetic tendency to form groups, but
> the degree of attachment and the specificity of the groups is largely a
> product of the culture.

My answer would not be simple, nor cut and dried. If we begin with calling
any cooperation or mutual goal striving "herding," then deer are herding
animals. There is a conventional meaning of "herding" which excludes them.
By the same token, if we begin with the notion that all current behavior is
a product of the cumulative experience of all one's ancestors, then if a
baseball player chews tobacco, grabs his crotch and spits before stepping up
to the plate, then this because his ancestors chewed vegetable matter, had
fleas and
occasionally put something into their mouths with a stinging insect in it.

With all due respect, it merely seems to me that it is easy to generalize
about modern social phenomena and
the experiences of ancestors. I cannot say such generalizations are
incorrect, nor that they are correct. Such ideas are innocuously drawn in
casual contemplation, but if we begin to base conclusions on them that guide
managerial normatives, or laws, or regulations of day care facilities... or
some such thing on them, would those be based on "science" or just on casual
speculations?

If we should agree that, "yes," man is a herding animal. What puzzles me
is, "Okay. So what do we do with this as an established "finding?"

Respectfully,

g




.