RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
whoa, austin just one minute please! i read your drift that you don't agree with my expert opinions. first, who is "we", like in "We know it is."? the entire world except me? if so, then i vociferously object!!! i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits how we behave. further, that social engineers need proceed with caution. e.g., when falling from a tree, a person can't right him/herself like a cat no matter how much learning the person has because the cat is genetically programmed to perform that behavior better than a human. however, a trampolinist who jumps straight up can use his/her given genetic endowment to fall flat on his/her back by bringing his/her arms swiftly over the head and a high diver can turn through many movements by moving parts of the body in different ways. same principle, but genetic hard-wiring limits what humans can do. (i like those examples because it is an excellent example of Newton's third law and conservation of angular momentum for tutoring wayward Physics students.) if i hear correctly what you are saying, you would maintain that with sufficient learning, a person could do what a cat can do too. if so, then again i object wholeheartedly. that was an extreme example, of course, but the point of it is that humans learn upon a genetic endowment that limits the learning. back to dominance-submissiveness, cooperation-competition, etc. in making social prescriptions, to be on the safe side for the "public interest", i would suggest that social engineers assume SOME genetic wiring so that their prescriptions don't create more problems than they solve. that's why i'm a "gradualist" for social reform. please explain in more detail why you object to these views? norm -Original Message- From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:06 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5807] RE: co-ops + human behavior We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI
RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
In order to know how genetics "limits" us, we would need to know what we would otherwise be capable of if but for our genetic structure (the facts of which we do not fully understand, let alone what we might dream up). This is something of a nonfalsifiable proposition, isn't it, if we depart from the obvious (like we cannot fly unaided because we have no wings)? Since the discussion appears to presuppose social behavioral genes, the argument strikes me as absurd. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI -Original Message- From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 7:48 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior whoa, austin just one minute please! i read your drift that you don't agree with my expert opinions. first, who is "we", like in "We know it is."? the entire world except me? if so, then i vociferously object!!! i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits how we behave. further, that social engineers need proceed with caution. e.g., when falling from a tree, a person can't right him/herself like a cat no matter how much learning the person has because the cat is genetically programmed to perform that behavior better than a human. however, a trampolinist who jumps straight up can use his/her given genetic endowment to fall flat on his/her back by bringing his/her arms swiftly over the head and a high diver can turn through many movements by moving parts of the body in different ways. same principle, but genetic hard-wiring limits what humans can do. (i like those examples because it is an excellent example of Newton's third law and conservation of angular momentum for tutoring wayward Physics students.) if i hear correctly what you are saying, you would maintain that with sufficient learning, a person could do what a cat can do too. if so, then again i object wholeheartedly. that was an extreme example, of course, but the point of it is that humans learn upon a genetic endowment that limits the learning. back to dominance-submissiveness, cooperation-competition, etc. in making social prescriptions, to be on the safe side for the "public interest", i would suggest that social engineers assume SOME genetic wiring so that their prescriptions don't create more problems than they solve. that's why i'm a "gradualist" for social reform. please explain in more detail why you object to these views? norm -Original Message- From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:06 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5807] RE: co-ops + human behavior We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI
Re: co-ops + human behavior
Look, given the state of our knowledge of genetics and behavior, thsi kind of talk can only be reactionary obscurantism. Besides, suppose you are right that we are hard wired for dominance. Do we want to allow ourselves to indulge in this sort of behavior? We are probablya s hard wired for violence (in a wide variety of circumstances) as we are for anything: so we should indulge this bad propensity? Hard wiring doesn't mean "can't': it just means "harder". Before you go on in this vein any more, go read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. It will help you avoid the more obvious errors. --jks let's see if i can remove myself from the ranks of the absurd to the near-absurd with one example of a falsifiable if-then proposition: if we are wired to behave (to some unknown degree, granted) hierarchically (we're talking dominance vs. submissiveness here), then those radicals who expect people to adjust to equal, fraternal and free social arrangements just by rearranging the social institutions are doomed in their attempts. considering the large numbers of failures of such attempts throughout history (wasn't the "dictatorship of the proletariat" supposed to wither away?), why is that statement absurd? norm -Original Message- From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:39 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5871] RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior In order to know how genetics "limits" us, we would need to know what we would otherwise be capable of if but for our genetic structure (the facts of which we do not fully understand, let alone what we might dream up). This is something of a nonfalsifiable proposition, isn't it, if we depart from the obvious (like we cannot fly unaided because we have no wings)? Since the discussion appears to presuppose social behavioral genes, the argument strikes me as absurd. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI -Original Message- From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 7:48 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior whoa, austin just one minute please! i read your drift that you don't agree with my expert opinions. first, who is "we", like in "We know it is."? the entire world except me? if so, then i vociferously object!!! i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits how we behave. further, that social engineers need proceed with caution. e.g., when falling from a tree, a person can't right him/herself like a cat no matter how much learning the person has because the cat is genetically programmed to perform that behavior better than a human. however, a trampolinist who jumps straight up can use his/her given genetic endowment to fall flat on his/her back by bringing his/her arms swiftly over the head and a high diver can turn through many movements by moving parts of the body in different ways. same principle, but genetic hard-wiring limits what humans can do. (i like those examples because it is an excellent example of Newton's third law and conservation of angular momentum for tutoring wayward Physics students.) if i hear correctly what you are saying, you would maintain that with sufficient learning, a person could do what a cat can do too. if so, then again i object wholeheartedly. that was an extreme example, of course, but the point of it is that humans learn upon a genetic endowment that limits the learning. back to dominance-submissiveness, cooperation-competition, etc. in making social prescriptions, to be on the safe side for the "public interest", i would suggest that social engineers assume SOME genetic wiring so that their prescriptions don't create more problems than they solve. that's why i'm a "gradualist" for social reform. please explain in more detail why you object to these views? norm -Original Message- From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:06 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5807] RE: co-ops + human behavior We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Re: RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
norm wrote: i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits how we behave. I think it's silly to reject -- as some leftists do -- the fact that there's a genetic determinant to the "nature of human nature." The genetic basis of human nature, however, has a lot of room to move (unlike, say, for cats, whose behavior seems to be mostly -- though not totally -- programmed by their genes). That is genetics determine human _potential_. The point for socialists should be to liberate and to _realize_ that potential, not to turn people into angels. This should be possible given the way that humanity has switched to using culture (including technology) as the main way of surviving and evolving and the many ways in which people's characters have varied over time and between cultures. BTW, Albert Hahnel's QUIET REVOLUTION IN WELFARE ECONOMICS, like all of their writings that I've read, take the fact that genetics plays a role very explicitly. These are folks whose politics veers toward anarchism or utopian socialism. In this, they are like Noam Chomsky, a more explicit anarchist (he's a self-described "libertarian socialist," isn't he?), who sees a genetic basis for the abstract grammar that he sees as the basis for concrete languages that people have. further, that social engineers need proceed with caution. My flavor of socialism has always opposed social engineering -- as a version of "socialism from above," imposed by what the "Internationale" terms "condescending saviors." Instead, the emphasis is on working-class collective self-liberation (with parallel principles applying to other oppressed groups). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: co-ops + human behavior
norm wrote: if you accept the above statements as facts, then why do ideologues advocate LARGE economic and political changes when the results of these are unknown? I believe that only the people themselves can institute large economic and political changes. Though I may think that they are necessary to the creation of a more human world (in harmony with nature), it's not sufficient. If the better world were imposed from above or from the outside, it would most likely turn into crap. isn't it in the "public interest" for "interest groups" who want a certain form of society to prevail to advocate step by step changes toward that goal and proceed from experience as a safer way to achieve their goal and at the same time avoid the potential chaos (to the "public interest") of large changes, the effects of which are unknown? I'm all in favor of incremental change, but the fact is that the powers that be oppose such change and eventually will have to be shoved out of the way. Further, the neoliberal elites -- the US Treasury, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. -- have been imposing massive and non-incremental change on the world for the last 20 to 25 years. Something has to be done to oppose them. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: co-ops + human behavior
How does hierarchical organization have a genetic component? Why even assume
this?
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-Original Message-
From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:35 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: co-ops + human behavior
norm said:
co-ops may be limited by people's limited motivation for cooperation with
each other. e.g, if we are 25% genetically programmed to cooperate with
people (for survival purposes) and 75%% genetically programmed to compete
with people (again, for survival purposes), then cooperative ventures will
always be subordinate to competitive ventures on the average.
jim said:
As Stephen J. Gould points out, it's a mistake to quantify such things in
biology and I haven't the slightest idea of where you got these numbers
from. In any case, competition can take many forms. It doesn't have to be
the aggressive "take no prisoners" kind of competition encouraged by
capitalism.
norm says:
the %'s were just hypothetical ("e.g.") using co-ops as an example.
everyone knows that cooperative, competitive, hierarchical, "creative", etc.
behavior patterns are a function of both genetics (presently not malleable)
and environment (malleable), but no one knows the influence of each. also,
notwithstanding the "great social thinker" descriptions and prescriptions,
no one knows how LARGE changes in specific laws, codes, cultural values,
etc. will affect individual and group behavior.
if you accept the above statements as facts, then why do ideologues advocate
LARGE economic and political changes when the results of these are unknown?
isn't it in the "public interest" for "interest groups" who want a certain
form of society to prevail to advocate step by step changes toward that goal
and proceed from experience as a safer way to achieve their goal and at the
same time avoid the potential chaos (to the "public interest") of large
changes, the effects of which are unknown?
norm
RE: co-ops + human behavior
We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI
Re: co-ops + human behavior
Oh, Norm, stop the silly bad sociobiology. Competitive behavior is
"programmed" into us, but it is triggered only in certain circumstances.
Violent behavior is likewise "programmed: into us, but we don't say, well in
that case, let's legalize assault and murder! Rather, we craete social and
legal incentives to minimize and punish the behavior where it is bad and
direct it into harmless channels where it is not, e.g., martial arts. --jks
thanks for the reference. i'll put the Encyclopedia of PE on my list that
seems to grow faster than my purchases. no wonder my psychiatrist daughter
calls me a "bookaholic". (so how can i refute a Board-certified shrink?)
interesting you mention the Mondragon market because Chomsky is always
singing praises to it and Orwell's "Homage to ?" - about the workers' co-op
movements in Spain prior to being crushed by Franco. that is also on my
list.
with all these persuasive co-op comments from listers, though, i'm still
missing an important ingredient on people's motivations for cooperative vs.
competitive behavior that underlies all discussions of social institutions,
including co-ops, i.e., the genetic ("nature") causes and environmental
("nurture") causes of cooperative and competitive behavior.
co-ops may be limited by people's limited motivation for cooperation with
each other. e.g, if we are 25% genetically programmed to cooperate with
people (for survival purposes) and 75%% genetically programmed to compete
with people (again, for survival purposes), then cooperative ventures will
always be subordinate to competitive ventures on the average. if this
assumption is true, then no matter how much leftists try to change the
environment ("culture") to promote more cooperation and less competition,
their efforts will always be limited by "human nature" (genetic
programming).
an extension of this assumption is that leftist ventures to make classless,
egalitarian, non-hierarchical societies are hopeless dreams.
norm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5649] Re: Re: co-ops
Norm,
If you want to study co-ops as a system, complete with their own
credit union bank and education system, have a look at the history
and success of the Mondragon co-ops in Spain. With all their
limitations, this is probably the best example of what you are
looking for. I would also refer you to the Encyclopedia of Political
Economy which has a digest not only of Mondragon, market
socialism, social ownership, Marxian political economy and just
about everything else you have asked about complete with short
bibliographies on each topic. It is an invaluable resource.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
_
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Re: co-ops + human behavior
At 10:27 AM 12/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
thanks for the reference. i'll put the Encyclopedia of PE on my list that
seems to grow faster than my purchases. no wonder my psychiatrist daughter
calls me a "bookaholic". (so how can i refute a Board-certified shrink?)
interesting you mention the Mondragon market because Chomsky is always
singing praises to it and Orwell's "Homage to ?" - about the workers' co-op...
it's "Homage to Catalonia." BTW, I wouldn't say that the Barcelonan co-ops
had stabilized to do regular production. Further, the book's more about
politics than about economics. It's a good book though.
Speaking of good books, the Encyclopedia of PE is excellent. Look for the
first article in volume I, along with two others that stand above the herd.
with all these persuasive co-op comments from listers, though, i'm still
missing an important ingredient on people's motivations for cooperative vs.
competitive behavior that underlies all discussions of social institutions,
including co-ops, i.e., the genetic ("nature") causes and environmental
("nurture") causes of cooperative and competitive behavior.
co-ops may be limited by people's limited motivation for cooperation with
each other. e.g, if we are 25% genetically programmed to cooperate with
people (for survival purposes) and 75%% genetically programmed to compete
with people (again, for survival purposes), then cooperative ventures will
always be subordinate to competitive ventures on the average.
As Stephen J. Gould points out, it's a mistake to quantify such things in
biology and I haven't the slightest idea of where you got these numbers
from. In any case, competition can take many forms. It doesn't have to be
the aggressive "take no prisoners" kind of competition encouraged by
capitalism.
if this
assumption is true, then no matter how much leftists try to change the
environment ("culture") to promote more cooperation and less competition,
their efforts will always be limited by "human nature" (genetic
programming).
even capitalists cooperate a lot when they're not directly competing. As
I've noted before, there are a lot of industry self-regulation
organizations in the US economy (which are almost entirely ignored by the
economics textbooks -- I add the "almost" because I haven't read anything
close to all of them). There are all sorts of strategic alliances. There
are all sorts of political alliances.
It's impossible for a human being to make objective generalizations about
"human nature" because each of us is constrained and shaped by the societal
environment. People in different societies make different societies make
different generalizations. People living in an individualistic society such
as the US assume that people are more competitive than people in Japan do,
for example. Also these assertions about the nature of human nature seem to
vary in history.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: co-ops + human behavior
So how do you explain suicides?Do genetic programmes crash :)
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:27 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:5669] co-ops + human behavior
co-ops may be limited by people's limited motivation for cooperation with
each other. e.g, if we are 25% genetically programmed to cooperate with
people (for survival purposes) and 75%% genetically programmed to compete
with people (again, for survival purposes), then cooperative ventures will
always be subordinate to competitive ventures on the average. if this
assumption is true, then no matter how much leftists try to change the
environment ("culture") to promote more cooperation and less competition,
their efforts will always be limited by "human nature" (genetic
programming).
