CDZ Collective identity--what's up with that?

[Holos]

Okay. Are you ready for this? I've thought about it ever since I was given my thinking faculties and have never stopped improving my understanding on these circumstances. (Guess why? Yes! You are correct! Because dying, getting sick or injured is not in my interest at all, even if every other person says there is no way out and we better stay in our houses, labs and offices until the inevitable takes the little borrowed and expendable power we acquired by the combination of our very determined and committed efforts to be debtors with an IMPERSONAL LUCKIER THAN US PARTIALLY ADMITTED PREDILECTION!)

We are indeed social animals. Not FOR a rescuing reason from powerlesness, but BECAUSE of and already fulfilled reason proceeded from, and advanced beyond, power. Society does not work upon wishful thinking and helpless expectations. Society works upon carefully planned wishes and modifiable beneficial certainty.

Think with me. Solitary confinement is no punishment at all. Solitary confinement is actually an excellent opportunity for discipline, comprehension of reality, and enhancement of experience. After all, you would at least have shelter secured for you, right? The shelter may indeed turn out to be something less than a refuge, but this would be realized only in the case the confinement is first embraced as an opportunity.

People go crazy when forced to do anything, including believe in and deny what they cannot comprehend (sickness and death are great examples). However, if instead of being forced a person engages in the same activity willingly then sanity will never be a problem to them, except as one of collaborative nature.

I'll address the only point in your reply that addressed my post. You arent a typical human if you like solitary confinement.forced or unforced. Yes a large part of why we are social animals is for safety. A human has no fangs, claws, etc. We are probably the physically weakest mammal on the face of the planet. You get sick when you are alone and you are a goner. Our minds have developed this need for groups in order to preserve our survival.

I am curious about the nature of your observations. "Humans are probably the physically weakest mammal on the face of the planet." Well, yes, if the group of humans you are thinking about are spending the majority of their times sitting on chairs in front of computers or reading books, then yes, it is more than probable, it is actually evident, they are the weakest.

But you have included in that statement "the face of the planet". And it is there where I am able to firmly disagree with your probability driven theory for lack of data collected. Have you spent the majority of your time in this planet observing its various locations by using your own physical body and nothing else other than its natural biological necessities? If you had, you would know of the inherent strenght in humans. If you had actually spent time with wild animals who do indeed have claws and fangs (without being a scared scattered wimp), you would know, for instance, that upright walking and two inferior and two superior body members phenotypically consistent of two 5 digit grasps each can take on any fang or claw easilly. This I tell you not only from my own solitary human experience in the wilderness but also of my experience observing other active humans throughout the face of the planet.

No one that I have ever heard of has spent the majority of their life alone in the wild. I doubt you have as well. I have spent some time in the militarys survival classes which ironically is where I learned the simple truth of my view point. I didnt need to spend much time with wild animals such as leopards, lions, and bears to figure out they are top level predators by themselves while I would need tools and help from other humans to do what they do easily and alone. All I really need to do is be shown a video of you or some other guy taking on a angry wild lion without any tools or help from other humans and emerging victorious from a deadly encounter.

Angry and fully capable animals in their optimal health, either human, feline or mammal alike, find their greatest achievement in assuring security not through physical combat but through effective communication. Animals, we ourselves included, are not killing machines. We are associative relating machines able to create multiple venues for conflicting life forms in a variety of expressive ways.

There are plenty of those videos on the internet, by the way. If you don't want to go outside of your computer, why don't you try going outside of this website? Your independence appreciates it.

Its pretty simple. Predators kill to eat, train, or play. Humans without tools and social groups are pretty low on the predator scale and high on the victim scale. We cant run fast, fly, climb, or fight very well in relation to other animals. Our survival depended on our instinct to make groupings with other humans to overcome those deficiencies.

You have completely ignored my last argument and have repeated your previous statements within an inflexible argumentative position after I had already addressed them from a different perspective. This is the Clean Debate Zone, in which we attempt to advance our understandings by carefully analysing and ideally contribute to each other's thoughts, assumptions and principles.

I could again provide an altogether novel perspective from what I have ready offered with again the intention to increase our comprehension, parameters and possibilities in relation to the question posed.

I cannot, however, continue, if you do not understand what the purpose of a debate is and insist in confusing it with the need to prove yourself or your colleagues wrong or right.

 

[Asclepias]

I'll address the only point in your reply that addressed my post. You arent a typical human if you like solitary confinement.forced or unforced. Yes a large part of why we are social animals is for safety. A human has no fangs, claws, etc. We are probably the physically weakest mammal on the face of the planet. You get sick when you are alone and you are a goner. Our minds have developed this need for groups in order to preserve our survival.

I am curious about the nature of your observations. "Humans are probably the physically weakest mammal on the face of the planet." Well, yes, if the group of humans you are thinking about are spending the majority of their times sitting on chairs in front of computers or reading books, then yes, it is more than probable, it is actually evident, they are the weakest.

But you have included in that statement "the face of the planet". And it is there where I am able to firmly disagree with your probability driven theory for lack of data collected. Have you spent the majority of your time in this planet observing its various locations by using your own physical body and nothing else other than its natural biological necessities? If you had, you would know of the inherent strenght in humans. If you had actually spent time with wild animals who do indeed have claws and fangs (without being a scared scattered wimp), you would know, for instance, that upright walking and two inferior and two superior body members phenotypically consistent of two 5 digit grasps each can take on any fang or claw easilly. This I tell you not only from my own solitary human experience in the wilderness but also of my experience observing other active humans throughout the face of the planet.

No one that I have ever heard of has spent the majority of their life alone in the wild. I doubt you have as well. I have spent some time in the militarys survival classes which ironically is where I learned the simple truth of my view point. I didnt need to spend much time with wild animals such as leopards, lions, and bears to figure out they are top level predators by themselves while I would need tools and help from other humans to do what they do easily and alone. All I really need to do is be shown a video of you or some other guy taking on a angry wild lion without any tools or help from other humans and emerging victorious from a deadly encounter.

Angry and fully capable animals in their optimal health, either human, feline or mammal alike, find their greatest achievement in assuring security not through physical combat but through effective communication. Animals, we ourselves included, are not killing machines. We are associative relating machines able to create multiple venues for conflicting life forms in a variety of expressive ways.

There are plenty of those videos on the internet, by the way. If you don't want to go outside of your computer, why don't you try going outside of this website? Your independence appreciates it.

Its pretty simple. Predators kill to eat, train, or play. Humans without tools and social groups are pretty low on the predator scale and high on the victim scale. We cant run fast, fly, climb, or fight very well in relation to other animals. Our survival depended on our instinct to make groupings with other humans to overcome those deficiencies.

You have completely ignored my last argument and have repeated your previous statements within an inflexible argumentative position after I had already addressed them from a different perspective. This is the Clean Debate Zone, in which we attempt to advance our understandings by carefully analysing and ideally contribute to each other's thoughts, assumptions and principles.

I could again provide an altogether novel perspective from what I have ready offered with again the intention to increase our comprehension, parameters and possibilities in relation to the question posed.

I cannot, however, continue, if you do not understand what the purpose of a debate is and insist in confusing it with the need to prove yourself or your colleagues wrong or right.

Honestly I ignored your argument because it had nothing to do with the point. The point being that humans make groups based on instinct. Nothing you argued changed that or even opened the avenue to an alternate reason as to why people form groups. If you chose not to continue I wish you well.

 

[irosie91]

Okay. Are you ready for this? I've thought about it ever since I was given my thinking faculties and have never stopped improving my understanding on these circumstances. (Guess why? Yes! You are correct! Because dying, getting sick or injured is not in my interest at all, even if every other person says there is no way out and we better stay in our houses, labs and offices until the inevitable takes the little borrowed and expendable power we acquired by the combination of our very determined and committed efforts to be debtors with an IMPERSONAL LUCKIER THAN US PARTIALLY ADMITTED PREDILECTION!)

We are indeed social animals. Not FOR a rescuing reason from powerlesness, but BECAUSE of and already fulfilled reason proceeded from, and advanced beyond, power. Society does not work upon wishful thinking and helpless expectations. Society works upon carefully planned wishes and modifiable beneficial certainty.

Think with me. Solitary confinement is no punishment at all. Solitary confinement is actually an excellent opportunity for discipline, comprehension of reality, and enhancement of experience. After all, you would at least have shelter secured for you, right? The shelter may indeed turn out to be something less than a refuge, but this would be realized only in the case the confinement is first embraced as an opportunity.

People go crazy when forced to do anything, including believe in and deny what they cannot comprehend (sickness and death are great examples). However, if instead of being forced a person engages in the same activity willingly then sanity will never be a problem to them, except as one of collaborative nature.

I'll address the only point in your reply that addressed my post. You arent a typical human if you like solitary confinement.forced or unforced. Yes a large part of why we are social animals is for safety. A human has no fangs, claws, etc. We are probably the physically weakest mammal on the face of the planet. You get sick when you are alone and you are a goner. Our minds have developed this need for groups in order to preserve our survival.

Butterfly-----GOOGLE LAMARCK------please feel free to ask questions

Sure thing. First question. Why do you want me to google Lamarcks failed theory?

your statement CONFORMS to LAMARCK's theory of evolution-----"we evolve
IN ORDER to achieve a goal"------is kinda Lamarckian. ----we evolve
---as Darwin concluded---because OF NATURAL SELECTION----which means htat
a given MUTATION conferred SURVIVAL VALUE------and was, therefore-----thru
NATURAL SELECTION ----propagated-------the issue is THAT WHICH SUPPORTS
PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIES_----gets preserved

I thought you were referring to the part were he claimed if an organism evolved to survive during its lifetime then it passed on that change to its offspring. We now know there has to be a genetic change within the DNA to accomplish that.

Is that what you "thought" -----ok ----no Genetics was my forte when I was
an undergraduate. -------the sum of random mutation ----"SELECTED" if they
INCREASE the likelihood of survival------IS EVOLUTION> Social intereaction
is the result of NATURAL SELECTION ------of random mutation

 

[Holos]

I am curious about the nature of your observations. "Humans are probably the physically weakest mammal on the face of the planet." Well, yes, if the group of humans you are thinking about are spending the majority of their times sitting on chairs in front of computers or reading books, then yes, it is more than probable, it is actually evident, they are the weakest.

But you have included in that statement "the face of the planet". And it is there where I am able to firmly disagree with your probability driven theory for lack of data collected. Have you spent the majority of your time in this planet observing its various locations by using your own physical body and nothing else other than its natural biological necessities? If you had, you would know of the inherent strenght in humans. If you had actually spent time with wild animals who do indeed have claws and fangs (without being a scared scattered wimp), you would know, for instance, that upright walking and two inferior and two superior body members phenotypically consistent of two 5 digit grasps each can take on any fang or claw easilly. This I tell you not only from my own solitary human experience in the wilderness but also of my experience observing other active humans throughout the face of the planet.

No one that I have ever heard of has spent the majority of their life alone in the wild. I doubt you have as well. I have spent some time in the militarys survival classes which ironically is where I learned the simple truth of my view point. I didnt need to spend much time with wild animals such as leopards, lions, and bears to figure out they are top level predators by themselves while I would need tools and help from other humans to do what they do easily and alone. All I really need to do is be shown a video of you or some other guy taking on a angry wild lion without any tools or help from other humans and emerging victorious from a deadly encounter.

Angry and fully capable animals in their optimal health, either human, feline or mammal alike, find their greatest achievement in assuring security not through physical combat but through effective communication. Animals, we ourselves included, are not killing machines. We are associative relating machines able to create multiple venues for conflicting life forms in a variety of expressive ways.

There are plenty of those videos on the internet, by the way. If you don't want to go outside of your computer, why don't you try going outside of this website? Your independence appreciates it.

Its pretty simple. Predators kill to eat, train, or play. Humans without tools and social groups are pretty low on the predator scale and high on the victim scale. We cant run fast, fly, climb, or fight very well in relation to other animals. Our survival depended on our instinct to make groupings with other humans to overcome those deficiencies.

You have completely ignored my last argument and have repeated your previous statements within an inflexible argumentative position after I had already addressed them from a different perspective. This is the Clean Debate Zone, in which we attempt to advance our understandings by carefully analysing and ideally contribute to each other's thoughts, assumptions and principles.

I could again provide an altogether novel perspective from what I have ready offered with again the intention to increase our comprehension, parameters and possibilities in relation to the question posed.

I cannot, however, continue, if you do not understand what the purpose of a debate is and insist in confusing it with the need to prove yourself or your colleagues wrong or right.

Honestly I ignored your argument because it had nothing to do with the point. The point being that humans make groups based on instinct. Nothing you argued changed that or even opened the avenue to an alternate reason as to why people form groups. If you chose not to continue I wish you well.

The thread is about identification, not about society. The collectivity inquired initially by the OP pertained primarily to the nature of the mind and not the nature of biology or physics. You have neglected the fundamental concept offered by the OP for debate (identity) and refused to make your statements integrative of possibilities. The "point" of any proposal in a debate zone is essentially an open question mark and not an indoctrinating final period. My arguments shouldn't be made to open alternate avenues because the OP in a debate zone is already doing that for us so we can continue investigating those already open avenues from the initial question. You have, deliberately or not, closed some avenues and assumed therefore that I am now obliged to open them again, otherwise offering you proof alone that your closed avenues are more valid than any other, even if they lead nowhere further. Ridiculous, isn't it? Yes, that is your argumentative base.

I can very well initiate my whole argument again from your newly formed statement. "Humans make groups based on instincts". Actually, I would be thrilled to explore that idea taking identity as the main conceptual reference as offered in this thread. However, would you be capable of incrementing value to my posts as I do to yours? Because so far your insistence has shown you have no capacity to increment the value in your own self affirmative repetitive posts and much less understand the principles of value increment in a debate. I might as well develop (increment value to) the ideas here proposed in my own private meditations, if you choose yourself to remain allied to stagnant and falsely authoritative impressions. (Oh damn, you never met anyone so amazing as an "unconventional human being" and your only true guiding models to behave in life were the drama folks at your military course? How awful! It must be truly terrible being so weak and so convinced of your weakness, you poor scapegoat. You were not even given a prospect further than your eventual and unavoidable oblivion, as the good weakling you are! Poor thing. Terrible, terrible indeed).

 

[Asclepias]

No one that I have ever heard of has spent the majority of their life alone in the wild. I doubt you have as well. I have spent some time in the militarys survival classes which ironically is where I learned the simple truth of my view point. I didnt need to spend much time with wild animals such as leopards, lions, and bears to figure out they are top level predators by themselves while I would need tools and help from other humans to do what they do easily and alone. All I really need to do is be shown a video of you or some other guy taking on a angry wild lion without any tools or help from other humans and emerging victorious from a deadly encounter.

Angry and fully capable animals in their optimal health, either human, feline or mammal alike, find their greatest achievement in assuring security not through physical combat but through effective communication. Animals, we ourselves included, are not killing machines. We are associative relating machines able to create multiple venues for conflicting life forms in a variety of expressive ways.

There are plenty of those videos on the internet, by the way. If you don't want to go outside of your computer, why don't you try going outside of this website? Your independence appreciates it.

Its pretty simple. Predators kill to eat, train, or play. Humans without tools and social groups are pretty low on the predator scale and high on the victim scale. We cant run fast, fly, climb, or fight very well in relation to other animals. Our survival depended on our instinct to make groupings with other humans to overcome those deficiencies.

You have completely ignored my last argument and have repeated your previous statements within an inflexible argumentative position after I had already addressed them from a different perspective. This is the Clean Debate Zone, in which we attempt to advance our understandings by carefully analysing and ideally contribute to each other's thoughts, assumptions and principles.

I could again provide an altogether novel perspective from what I have ready offered with again the intention to increase our comprehension, parameters and possibilities in relation to the question posed.

I cannot, however, continue, if you do not understand what the purpose of a debate is and insist in confusing it with the need to prove yourself or your colleagues wrong or right.

Honestly I ignored your argument because it had nothing to do with the point. The point being that humans make groups based on instinct. Nothing you argued changed that or even opened the avenue to an alternate reason as to why people form groups. If you chose not to continue I wish you well.

The thread is about identification, not about society. The collectivity inquired initially by the OP pertained primarily to the nature of the mind and not the nature of biology or physics. You have neglected the fundamental concept offered by the OP for debate (identity) and refused to make your statements integrative of possibilities. The "point" of any proposal in a debate zone is essentially an open question mark and not an indoctrinating final period. My arguments shouldn't be made to open alternate avenues because the OP in a debate zone is already doing that for us so we can continue investigating those already open avenues from the initial question. You have, deliberately or not, closed some avenues and assumed therefore that I am now obliged to open them again, otherwise offering you proof alone that your closed avenues are more valid than any other, even if they lead nowhere further. Ridiculous, isn't it? Yes, that is your argumentative base.

I can very well initiate my whole argument again from your newly formed statement. "Humans make groups based on instincts". Actually, I would be thrilled to explore that idea taking identity as the main conceptual reference as offered in this thread. However, would you be capable of incrementing value to my posts as I do to yours? Because so far your insistence has shown you have no capacity to increment the value in your own self affirmative repetitive posts and much less understand the principles of value increment in a debate. I might as well develop (increment value to) the ideas here proposed in my own private meditations, if you choose yourself to remain allied to stagnant and falsely authoritative impressions. (Oh damn, you never met anyone so amazing as an "unconventional human being" and your only true guiding models to behave in life were the drama folks at your military course? How awful! It must be truly terrible being so weak and so convinced of your weakness, you poor scapegoat. You were not even given a prospect further than your eventual and unavoidable oblivion, as the good weakling you are! Poor thing. Terrible, terrible indeed).

My wordy friend. I think you would have an easier time if you understood the instincts behind the phenomenon instead of pretending someone just thought it up without the instinct prompting it. If the instinct was not there to group yourself with people that think like, look like, live like, etc then it would not occur. We would be like leopards and only seek each other out to mate and fight.

 

[irosie91]

Your sophistry is impressive, but your statement>>>>'

"The thread is about identification, not about society. The collectivity inquired initially by the OP pertained primarily to the nature of the mind and not the nature of biology or physics."

is just about the most dim I have encountered ----and clearly demonstrates an utter
lack of "GRASP" of the essentials of ------NEUROSCIENCE and BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCE-----you seem to imagine that ---"BIOLOGY AND PHYSICS" are
unrelated to the workings of the HUMAN MIND ...... i got news for you

 

[Correll]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

 

[irosie91]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant

 

[Correll]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant

I've seen this type of thinking before.

He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.

He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.

Vulcans are not real.

Well, except for sociopaths.

 

[Agit8r]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant

No, just animalistic.

 

[Agit8r]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant

I've seen this type of thinking before.

He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.

He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.

Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.

 

[Correll]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant

I've seen this type of thinking before.

He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.

He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.

Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.

Example?

 

[Agit8r]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant

I've seen this type of thinking before.

He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.

He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.

Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.

Example?

Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.

Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.

Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.

 

[Holos]

Angry and fully capable animals in their optimal health, either human, feline or mammal alike, find their greatest achievement in assuring security not through physical combat but through effective communication. Animals, we ourselves included, are not killing machines. We are associative relating machines able to create multiple venues for conflicting life forms in a variety of expressive ways.

There are plenty of those videos on the internet, by the way. If you don't want to go outside of your computer, why don't you try going outside of this website? Your independence appreciates it.

Its pretty simple. Predators kill to eat, train, or play. Humans without tools and social groups are pretty low on the predator scale and high on the victim scale. We cant run fast, fly, climb, or fight very well in relation to other animals. Our survival depended on our instinct to make groupings with other humans to overcome those deficiencies.

You have completely ignored my last argument and have repeated your previous statements within an inflexible argumentative position after I had already addressed them from a different perspective. This is the Clean Debate Zone, in which we attempt to advance our understandings by carefully analysing and ideally contribute to each other's thoughts, assumptions and principles.

I could again provide an altogether novel perspective from what I have ready offered with again the intention to increase our comprehension, parameters and possibilities in relation to the question posed.

I cannot, however, continue, if you do not understand what the purpose of a debate is and insist in confusing it with the need to prove yourself or your colleagues wrong or right.

Honestly I ignored your argument because it had nothing to do with the point. The point being that humans make groups based on instinct. Nothing you argued changed that or even opened the avenue to an alternate reason as to why people form groups. If you chose not to continue I wish you well.

The thread is about identification, not about society. The collectivity inquired initially by the OP pertained primarily to the nature of the mind and not the nature of biology or physics. You have neglected the fundamental concept offered by the OP for debate (identity) and refused to make your statements integrative of possibilities. The "point" of any proposal in a debate zone is essentially an open question mark and not an indoctrinating final period. My arguments shouldn't be made to open alternate avenues because the OP in a debate zone is already doing that for us so we can continue investigating those already open avenues from the initial question. You have, deliberately or not, closed some avenues and assumed therefore that I am now obliged to open them again, otherwise offering you proof alone that your closed avenues are more valid than any other, even if they lead nowhere further. Ridiculous, isn't it? Yes, that is your argumentative base.

I can very well initiate my whole argument again from your newly formed statement. "Humans make groups based on instincts". Actually, I would be thrilled to explore that idea taking identity as the main conceptual reference as offered in this thread. However, would you be capable of incrementing value to my posts as I do to yours? Because so far your insistence has shown you have no capacity to increment the value in your own self affirmative repetitive posts and much less understand the principles of value increment in a debate. I might as well develop (increment value to) the ideas here proposed in my own private meditations, if you choose yourself to remain allied to stagnant and falsely authoritative impressions. (Oh damn, you never met anyone so amazing as an "unconventional human being" and your only true guiding models to behave in life were the drama folks at your military course? How awful! It must be truly terrible being so weak and so convinced of your weakness, you poor scapegoat. You were not even given a prospect further than your eventual and unavoidable oblivion, as the good weakling you are! Poor thing. Terrible, terrible indeed).

My wordy friend. I think you would have an easier time if you understood the instincts behind the phenomenon instead of pretending someone just thought it up without the instinct prompting it. If the instinct was not there to group yourself with people that think like, look like, live like, etc then it would not occur. We would be like leopards and only seek each other out to mate and fight.

 

[Holos]

Your sophistry is impressive, but your statement>>>>'

"The thread is about identification, not about society. The collectivity inquired initially by the OP pertained primarily to the nature of the mind and not the nature of biology or physics."

is just about the most dim I have encountered ----and clearly demonstrates an utter
lack of "GRASP" of the essentials of ------NEUROSCIENCE and BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCE-----you seem to imagine that ---"BIOLOGY AND PHYSICS" are
unrelated to the workings of the HUMAN MIND ...... i got news for you

So you are asking me to teach Neuroscience, Behavioral Science, Biology and Physics...ALL TOGETHER IN A SINGLE POST just so you can understand the human mind?

You know I would...

 

[irosie91]

Your sophistry is impressive, but your statement>>>>'

"The thread is about identification, not about society. The collectivity inquired initially by the OP pertained primarily to the nature of the mind and not the nature of biology or physics."

is just about the most dim I have encountered ----and clearly demonstrates an utter
lack of "GRASP" of the essentials of ------NEUROSCIENCE and BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCE-----you seem to imagine that ---"BIOLOGY AND PHYSICS" are
unrelated to the workings of the HUMAN MIND ...... i got news for you

So you are asking me to teach Neuroscience, Behavioral Science, Biology and Physics...ALL TOGETHER IN A SINGLE POST just so you can understand the human mind?

You know I would...

I am opened to your insights in those fields-------

 

[Holos]

Your sophistry is impressive, but your statement>>>>'

"The thread is about identification, not about society. The collectivity inquired initially by the OP pertained primarily to the nature of the mind and not the nature of biology or physics."

is just about the most dim I have encountered ----and clearly demonstrates an utter
lack of "GRASP" of the essentials of ------NEUROSCIENCE and BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCE-----you seem to imagine that ---"BIOLOGY AND PHYSICS" are
unrelated to the workings of the HUMAN MIND ...... i got news for you

So you are asking me to teach Neuroscience, Behavioral Science, Biology and Physics...ALL TOGETHER IN A SINGLE POST just so you can understand the human mind?

You know I would...

I am opened to your insights in those fields-------

What for?

 

[Asclepias]

Its pretty simple. Predators kill to eat, train, or play. Humans without tools and social groups are pretty low on the predator scale and high on the victim scale. We cant run fast, fly, climb, or fight very well in relation to other animals. Our survival depended on our instinct to make groupings with other humans to overcome those deficiencies.

You have completely ignored my last argument and have repeated your previous statements within an inflexible argumentative position after I had already addressed them from a different perspective. This is the Clean Debate Zone, in which we attempt to advance our understandings by carefully analysing and ideally contribute to each other's thoughts, assumptions and principles.

I could again provide an altogether novel perspective from what I have ready offered with again the intention to increase our comprehension, parameters and possibilities in relation to the question posed.

I cannot, however, continue, if you do not understand what the purpose of a debate is and insist in confusing it with the need to prove yourself or your colleagues wrong or right.

Honestly I ignored your argument because it had nothing to do with the point. The point being that humans make groups based on instinct. Nothing you argued changed that or even opened the avenue to an alternate reason as to why people form groups. If you chose not to continue I wish you well.

The thread is about identification, not about society. The collectivity inquired initially by the OP pertained primarily to the nature of the mind and not the nature of biology or physics. You have neglected the fundamental concept offered by the OP for debate (identity) and refused to make your statements integrative of possibilities. The "point" of any proposal in a debate zone is essentially an open question mark and not an indoctrinating final period. My arguments shouldn't be made to open alternate avenues because the OP in a debate zone is already doing that for us so we can continue investigating those already open avenues from the initial question. You have, deliberately or not, closed some avenues and assumed therefore that I am now obliged to open them again, otherwise offering you proof alone that your closed avenues are more valid than any other, even if they lead nowhere further. Ridiculous, isn't it? Yes, that is your argumentative base.

I can very well initiate my whole argument again from your newly formed statement. "Humans make groups based on instincts". Actually, I would be thrilled to explore that idea taking identity as the main conceptual reference as offered in this thread. However, would you be capable of incrementing value to my posts as I do to yours? Because so far your insistence has shown you have no capacity to increment the value in your own self affirmative repetitive posts and much less understand the principles of value increment in a debate. I might as well develop (increment value to) the ideas here proposed in my own private meditations, if you choose yourself to remain allied to stagnant and falsely authoritative impressions. (Oh damn, you never met anyone so amazing as an "unconventional human being" and your only true guiding models to behave in life were the drama folks at your military course? How awful! It must be truly terrible being so weak and so convinced of your weakness, you poor scapegoat. You were not even given a prospect further than your eventual and unavoidable oblivion, as the good weakling you are! Poor thing. Terrible, terrible indeed).

My wordy friend. I think you would have an easier time if you understood the instincts behind the phenomenon instead of pretending someone just thought it up without the instinct prompting it. If the instinct was not there to group yourself with people that think like, look like, live like, etc then it would not occur. We would be like leopards and only seek each other out to mate and fight.

At a loss as to what to say? I thought I would never see the day.

 

[Asclepias]

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant

I've seen this type of thinking before.

He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.

He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.

Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.

Example?

Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.

Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.

Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.

Wouldnt making oneself strong and being able to provide and protect for their family members cover the reason for being proud to be a man? How about being able to attract a male that will stay with and protect you and your children be a reason for being proud to be a woman? Those are simple and dated reasons for sure but you can expand that example for other areas.

 

[Correll]

Humans are social creatures and tend to form "tribes".

If you think you are above it, you are either a sociopath, or kidding yourself.

he seems to reject PRIMATE SOCIALIZATION as being------aberrant

I've seen this type of thinking before.

He thinks that since he does not identify with the group of his father, or those who look like him, that he is a creature of pure intellect and logic.

He is ignoring that he identifies with like minded people, such as the authors he has read or the political schools of though he believes, or .... something.

Lol. No. I just find that one "sort" of person has the same basic inclinations as any other sort; the subtle differences imposed by groupthink notwithstanding.

Example?

Let's take the most basic division there is: Men and women. Both typically have the same motivations; to be loved, to be respected in their chosen station in life, to be free from harm by others, etc.

Individuals may find different ways of achieving these goals, based upon patterns set for them by parental figures, siblings, etc, or such examples may leave them without these skills, but the basic needs remain the same.

Yet many would have us believe that the specific paths to meeting human needs are something they should be proud of--and further, that one ought to be proud to belong to whatever group imprinted these patterns upon their conscience. I don't buy that.

Groups are composed of the individuals that make up the group.

Not all groups are the same.

If your group does something better than the other groups why should that NOT reflect well on you as part of that group?