Priority 1: Self preservation
Priority 2: Reproduce
This is what we are taught, but it’s not what I see. People give their lives in the pursuit of acceptance or due to lack of it. Would this not mean that there’s a successor to self preservation? Suicide cults, military, suicide bombers all willing to give their lives. The Asch experiment on conformity proves that we’ll sacrifice what we know is right, in order to “fit in”. It is my belief that the Asch experiment only scratched the surface of what we will do, in order to be accepted by the ones we wish to emulate.
Priority 1: Acceptance
Priority 2: Self preservation
Priority 3: Reproduce
It doesn’t make sense psychologically, but it does explain society much clearer, don’t you think?
What does this say about our psychology, our nature, our future, our destiny, our purpose? I am very interested in feedback from those of you, who have an opinion, whether it is in agreement to my post, or the contrary.
83 comments
I was just reading a paper on these experiments the other day. I think conformity is very often given predence over self preservation, but it’s not so simple. There will always be people who “jump on the grenade” for the “honor”. Even if they won’t be around to enjoy it the thought of being a hero overides their basic survival insticts.
It says we’re all idiots who avoid thinking for ourselves. That we’re all crazy stupid.
conformity is a means to obtaining self preservation. more often than not, by conforming and thus becoming part of the group, one gains protections that further the goal of self preservation. Talcott Parsons describes this as ‘AGIL’, or 1)Adaptation, ie one (individual or society) adapts behavior to survive 2)G= Goal Attainment, or survival(the goal is always survival, whether of a group or an individual), 3)Integration, ie the adaptive behavior becomes integrated into the society or individual behaviors and finally 4)Latent Pattern Maintenance, or the behavior becomes so ingrained in the society or the individual that it continues even when it no longer serves the function it was originally adapted for, ie it no longer serves to help aid in survival.
So, yes, the individual, or group, will adapt and conform to norms in order to further survival, and will continue these behaviors even after they are no longer useful in aiding survival, hence the persistence of suicide bombers, the persistence of the woman who cuts the end off her ham when cooking it because her mother did–but her mother did it because her pan was too small, or that all outsiders/others who think differently are a threat and must be eliminated, or the idea that those who choose to be different or not a part of the group must be destroyed, ie the Salem Witch Trials on women who did not marry and did not live by the groups norms.
The group must survive in order for the individuals in it to survive. An individual can choose not to be in the group, but then they are cut off from many resources, making survival much more difficult.
I think priorities can be further distilled to1. Avoiding that which we fear2. Extending our existence (or effect on the world)Most living things fear death, therefore #1 translates to “self preservation”. And most people can only extend their existence (have a lasting impact on the world) by having offspring, therefore #2 translates to “procreation” as you said.Human society has put such a premium on acceptance that in some cases the #1 thing we fear most is being outcast, ridiculed or alone. This would account for people who put acceptance as their #1 priority. But I believe it all comes down to what people fear the most.A rare few, such as many of us here, get beyond our fear of death. Or maybe our fear of life becomes greater, and that’s why we commit suicide. Or in the case of “altruistic suicide” (the soldier who jumps on a grenade), the fear of death is less than the desire to have an impact on the world, or #2 extend his or her existence by affecting the lives of others. Maybe the greatest fear within us is the fear of being pointless.
Your comment is awaiting moderation. Why.? Because i used the word Homo erectus.
Are future we will evolve once more. Designer babies healthy good looking high iqs
Uses of Human Genetic Engineering.? It could help prevent life-threatening and incurable diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, even HIV/AIDS. There are cases like cardiomyopathy or susceptibility to viruses, that can be overcome with the help of this technology
By 1.9 million years ago, some of the early transitional humans had evolved into a new, fully human species in Africa. Homo erectus literally upright human. Homo erectus were very successful in creating cultural technologies that allowed them to adapt to new environmental opportunities. They were true pioneers in developing human culture and in expanding their geographic range beyond Africa to populate tropical and subtropical zones elsewhere in the Old World. This territorial expansion most likely began around 1.8-1.7 million years ago, coinciding with progressively cooler global temperatures. Surprisingly, however, Homo erectus remained little changed anatomically until about 800,000-700,000 years ago
After that time, there apparently were evolutionary developments in features of the head that would become characteristic of modern humans. By half a million years ago, some Homo erectus were able to move into the seasonally cold temperate zones of Asia and Europe. This migration was made possible by greater intelligence and new cultural technologies, probably including better hunting skills and the ability to create fire. Are future we will evolve once more.
Hello Donnie 🙂
Hey duke. I’m be cen sord.
We have identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA.
Over the next 200 year’s we have evolved once more by are own hand
Yes I can see.
The Asch test is flawed and cannot be applied to all aspects of social interaction. If a person has been conditioned a certain way, they are not automatically going to change everything they know just to fit in to a new environment. Naturally, being exposed to a certain environment is going to have some impact on the person that you are but that’s not ‘fitting in’.
I appreciate each and every reply. They clarify answers that I seek. It’s good to know that when everyone on the planet seems to have a hidden agenda, you can find anonymous, honesty at this site. Thanks again and if any of you have any epiphanies or new concepts, let me know.
Krs- Your comment makes perfect sense and I completely agree with “your take” of the reason for the origin of conformity. There’s a kink though. In the past there have been revolutions, coos, anarchy etc., when people realized that the ones promoting the conformity, were abusing their privileges. I wonder why we, as a species, always end up right back where we started. Are today’s rulers any different than Roman Emperors or Egyptian Pharaohs? As times get harsher, do we not continue to suffer as the ones who govern prosper? Are we not educated enough to see this? Are we too lazy to do anything about it?
The governors of this planet claim that without them, there would be chaos. The governors. The ones who enforce laws and beliefs. Not the makers of medicines and helpful technologies, but the makers of regulations and religions. It seems that most of the planet’s chaos is due to these same laws, regulations and beliefs.
I don’t think the asch experiment is flawed at all. It doesn’t claim 100 percent results every time. And to what extent do you think that any one person will stand for what seems logical to them? Most “law abiding”, “good Samaritan”, “morally just” citizens will avoid death under normal circumstances, but when it’s advertised as their “honorable duty”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wUjZpPNsxI
Do you agree with the logic behind “being proud” to “serve your country”? I don’t know where you’re from, but I know every country has manipulated it’s members into suicide and genocide at one point in history or another. You can say it was for defense, but do you honestly believe most wars happen to defend the well being of the lowest on the social pyramid, for that particular country? The ones at the “bottom” are usually the ones doing the most dying and killing.
You’re right. And I think a lot of it “boils down” to laziness also.
I’m using my phone so can’t watch the video right now. Will take a look at it tomorrow.
If were were all given a mathematical equation to solve and our results did not concur with everyone roses then a person might be inclined to think they had made an error. Something like expressing an opinion however is completely different. You don’t necessarily follow other peoples way of thinking unless you are incredibly dependent on others.
Soldiers fight for their country because they are paid a lot of money to do it. Plus they get to kill people that wear slippers and a rag on there heads as a bonus.
Suicide bombers are usually very religious. They have absolute faith that they will be taken care of in the afterlife.
We are completely different. We operate as individuals with free will and under no circumstances ever hurt innocent civilians ever. Reginald Dyer was taken out because of the jallianwalla bagh massacre. Indra Gandhi because of Operation Blue Star. There are lots of examples but those were in retaliation we never attack first. These terrorists don’t mess with us because they know what we’re capable of.
Soldiers fight for their country cause we all. I mean are all tribal. Suicide bombers too. We now use sport. Well in my country. Football. Liverpool V manu. I could go on.
“We are completely different. We operate as individuals with free will and under no circumstances ever hurt innocent civilians ever.” Who is the “We” that you refer to that NEVER hurt civilians during times of war? I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but I don’t think that your “We” exists. There are always civilian casualties in war, so don’t fool yourself.
Nolentwohundred. You want a war or a course.
You’re right Donnie, but even tribesmen are indoctrinated to have loyalty to their own tribe. There is no proof that their level of loyalty is natural. I think we are naturally tribal, yes. I also think that the ones who govern us, are completely aware of this and greatly use the fact that we’re tribal, to their advantage.
I’m not sure I understand the question?
In any war that ‘we’ have ever fought the only civilian casualties incurred were the ones that we sustained because all wars were fought defending ourselves on our own soil. We have never invaded foreign land unless to drive invaders back. In recent times assassinations were based solely on military and political leaders not civilians.
What is your country of origin “Duke of Marmalade?”
Khalistan
Duke please tell me. Where you from. The word Duke dose not give it away.
When you invaded foreign land to “drive invaders back”, was there not 1 innocent killed? If that’s the case, that’s OUTSTANDING, I mean UNBELIEVABLE…truly unbelievable. I mean, I guess it’s okay if your country killed a few of their innocent citizens, in order to drive their soldiers back from killing your innocent citizens. I guess it’s okay if you drop one bomb on one school to show them that they can’t just drop 2 bombs on two of your schools. Murdering innocent people is okay, if it’s self-defense, right? I’m sure you can see by now, that this concept fails once put into action.
Why don’t you tell me your perspective on “Operation Blue Star” and I’ll send you a copy of the opposite perspective. It seems that BOTH sides, did considerable damage to their enemy. Soldiers AND civilians. You can try and justify reasons for the wars of your people, but genocide and the killing of the innocent, is always wrong.
Nolentwohundred your a idealist. Who want’s a revolution. Nolentwohundred. You want a war or a course. Something.? Just dont fuck with the uk.
No. We fought with swords not modern weapons. This was hand to hand combat like the samurai. No civilians were massacred. Afghanistan is a baron land. Invaders were pushed back into the mountains. Not the full military might of America with modern weapons. Our wars were hundreds of years ago.
Cause we English.
YES SIR DONNIE!!! Thanks for setting me straight. To be honest, I have no idea how to read the gibberish you replied to me. I DID however, understand the last sentence. I didn’t realize the “INNOCENT” United Kingdom, has NEVER done ANYTHING “unjust”, since the beginning of time. If you would like a list of wars and casualties in U.K. history, it’s only a click of the mouse. You insist on butting in with your “half-witted” comments and up until now, I have overlooked them, but this time, you’re obviously commenting on topics you know nothing about You can reply to this comment a hundred times, with every profanity that your primitive mind can conjure and it won’t make a difference in the least. I don’t fear you, or your comments. I can rest assured that if you’re the one representing the U.K. I can FUCK WITH IT, whenever I please.
I’ll go ahead and post this now, so you can reply with your obscenities and misspellings. Who knows, if you type out enough bullshit, maybe you’ll get something right, sooner or later. I’ve gotta’ go for now, but rest assured I’ll read your rants, when I return. Goodbye for now, my ingenuous friend.
My loyalty is to England. That’s the country that has looked after me.
If your wars were hundreds of years ago, then how do you know the information is accurate? Am I to think that wars were less gruesome and more likely to follow the “rules of engagement” or “more ‘gentlemenly’ ” hundreds of years ago, when people were busy decapitating one another?
Loyalty to England! Is this the country you claim, never had wars on foreign soil!? You DO realize that it was YOUR colonists that wiped out the majority of the Native American population, don’t you?
DoM there’s never been a war in the history of mankind that didn’t yield “innocent” causualties.
Nolent, it’s not that hard to understand Donnie if you take a little effort. Allow me to translate: ‘Nole two hundred, you’re an idealist who wants a revolution. Do you want a war or a cause?’
This is a good question. You obviously are itching for a war. Are you jut looking for a cause to justify it?
It’s against our core beliefs. Yes, soldiers were decapitated to set an example but not civilians. They were very tough. If America can’t defeat a minor group of people with cruise missiles that’s an example of resilience. Imagine what it must have been like against an empire.
It’s kind of accurate from a English point of view. & our enemy’s to. The u.s is fuck. Why.? Our the uk political system work’s. Who even win’s the house rule’s of five year’s. Just one party. Thing’s do get dun. You guy’s lke got one party in your house. And like your queen sayin no. So dose shit happen.? No. Get it.
England is my country, not the country of my ancestors
Shit dont happen.
We were a minority race and had to become militarised to survive. A man that puts a gold ring on each of his arrows to pay for his enemies funeral is not the type of person that would kill for the sake of it and without thinking about all of the consequences even if his sons were executed
YOUR colonists that wiped out the majority of the
you? Native American population, don’t you? Did we fuck. You did. We were gone 17 Look at our Comman waelth. There still ok. We left. You Did. We were gone.
“one free man defending his home is more powerful than ten hired soldiers.”
sadly, that’s not always true. but it’s a nice thought.
I have to go for now, but does anyone care to translate this 5h!t?
duke, i really like that story about putting the gold ring on the arrow.
duke, i really like that story about putting the gold ring on the arrow.
Why are you guys fighting about who did what in what age or war, what your culture is and blah blah blah etc etc?
@ob1 I like the quote. Where did you find it? Or did you just think it up?
I like your commentary OB1. It sounds like a fortune cookie I got the other day. I’m not sure it’s good to take advise from a spiritual leader who obviously smoked opium. LOL
Why not?
I was just wondering no reason why not as long as you don’t spout really hateful stuff because that’s one of the site rules.
@ OB1 not everyone did that. Just one wealthy warlord who could afford it.
It’s Nolentwohundred that likes to discuss war because its favourite topic. I’m just giving another perspective from my own cultural background because there are the only thing in our blood other than farming and drinking is war.
Robin Hood not a spiritual leader on opium
test
Still trying to reply in boxes?
why can’t i reply to someone? why do my posts always appear at the bottom of the page, even when i click on “reply” on someone elses post?
if things don’t change or i don’t get a satisfactory explanation, i’m going to start a war against this website. i will destroy you all. apart from those on my friends’ list. you will be saved.
scar, yes. thanks for your concern – you have been added to my friends’ list.
There’s a friend’s list? 😮
I don’t have any friends 🙁
Really.?
Yeeeeeah
I’ve been trying my best to solve this problem as well. My theory was that you’re only able to do it when you are the original poster, but it still didn’t work on any of my posts. Still have no idea how people change their avatar, though i’ve grown quite fond of mine.
You had my back Duke. And like the same movie’s. I say we friend’s.
Thanks Donnie, I’d like that
@ Scar You can change your Avatar by editing your account details or by having a separate account.
“donnie and duke”
sounds like a couple of country and western singers
Where, in edit profile? I’ve searched for hours there, couldn’t find a thing.
I don’t get horse race in. & dont want to. Your a ok guy. Duke.
You could always join OB1. But as you said I’m more machine now than man, twisted and evil. What are you doing here anyway, lost interest in your mates.
Change you email address or chat name and the Avatar will sometimes change
Oh, i mean like how lousie has hers, where it’s a completely different picture.
I don’t know. Sophie also has a picture of herself but without the funky hairdo.
duke, i’m in the chatroom at the same time as being here
Donnie, this time Sunday hopefully I will be drinking the donny P’ when Camelot wins the Arc and I collect a big bundle of cash. Man, if that happens I’m hitting the town.
duke, who is the jockey going to be?
@nolent, I showed you how to translate. If you can’t work it out for yourself by now youre either not that bright or just plain lazy. You never even bothered to answer the question…
@ OB1 non other than Frankie Dettori. Riding for Coolmore would you believe! It just shows even the retainer the Sheikh pays him is not worth more than pride.
@scar and ob1:
You can only ‘reply’ to people if it’s your thread. So nolent is the only person on this threa that can reply to people. Use the old school method of @name to reply to avoid confusion
Countless Native Americans were slaughtered by English Colonists, while under English rule. The original idea was for England to claim the land…remember? Anyway, take out the misspellings and poor sentence structure and the comment was still inaccurate. I didn’t think it was really necessary to call it to Donnie’s attention, as he would probably just reply with more fables and inaccuracies.
If you would like though, I could bring up Apartheid. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with it so I’ll copy and paste a brief introduction and a link. It basically says that England has killed countless South Africans and heavily oppressed them, since as recently as 1991.
After the National Party gained power in South Africa in 1948, its all-white government immediately began enforcing existing policies of racial segregation under a system of legislation that it called apartheid. Under apartheid, nonwhite South Africans (a majority of the population) would be forced to live in separate areas from whites and use separate public facilities, and contact between the two groups would be limited. Despite strong and consistent opposition to apartheid within and outside of South Africa, its laws remained in effect for the better part of 50 years. In 1991, the government of President F.W. de Klerk began to repeal most of the legislation that provided the basis for apartheid.
http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
It’s not laziness that prompted me to delay a response to Donnie. I simply didn’t feel like disproving him once again. I don’t mind debating with people, if both sides are willing to post facts and bother reading the others’ posts, but there’s no point in responding to someone who obviously hasn’t done their homework and there’s no point in destroying Donnie’s inaccurate comments. I merely tried to slightly offend him about his spelling, in order to keep from discrediting every thing he posts to me.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t know much about Donnie, but I think I like the guy. He seems to have a lot of fight in him, even though we don’t seem to meet “eye to eye” and I find some of his remarks crude and ill-researched.
Wow. 79 responses to “Are we all crazy”? Apparently the lunatics can type as well as reproduce stay alive. I think you’ll fit right in, Nolen. 🙂
You seem very empathetic toward Donnie and some of the others on here. That’s a wonderful quality to have. I’m sorry if I come across as “harsh” at times, but I think it is of benefit to some on here, to hear a different view than most will give them. I have received information in the past that has left me indifferent, bitter, jaded, hurt etc. Sometimes it’s not easy to take bad news, but let’s face it: The ones on this site who are truly thinking about suicide have probably already tossed out the idea that ignorance is bliss. Some want answers and others want opinions. I will continue to offer mine and I will debate with those who see differently. Sometimes we may change the minds of one another and sometimes not. I feel that no matter what, every time we debate, we learn more of one another and develop certain respects. In the end, I think that’s a positive thing. Probably more than we get from the mass population of people out there.
Thank you Lucy4. That means a lot, as I consider most people on here to be of much higher intellect and insight, than most of the public.
Hey Nolen; Everybody has a right to be heard, especially those who espouse a minority opinion.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
– Arthur Schopenhauer
@nolent I stand up for Donnie because i see over and over people picking on him because they can’t be bothered making an effort to understand him. I’ve seen him get bullied off this site over and over again and it pisses me off because that is the same reason why most people are here: because no one bothers to try to understand them. And then they come here and do the same thing! Hypocrocy. Donnie is an intelligent, witty, compassionate person who has communication issues. I don’t know if it’s only dyslexia or if there’s other complications. But this is an open forum and Donnie has just as mich right to be here as everyone else.
Any arguments regarding who has a bloodier history are fairly obsolete.. The main difference is that British colonialism is past and American is happening right now.