Because those oaths have worked.

Post #63,320 by Brandioch 11/16/02 9:07:59 PM Reply	Because those oaths have worked. "Hell, saying them EVERY DAY in school didn't hurt ME!" "And it damn sure didn't hurt my COUNTRY!" Of course, this is a country that has recently forgiven MS for being such a mis-understood company. And is planning on a "pre-emptive" invasion of another country. And is "detaining" some of its own citizens without recourse to legal counsel. And has, recently, decided the client/attourney relationships aren't as sacred as they once were. It's a bit boggling that there should be anyone arguing the affirmative [Oaths Be Good? or at least OK? or.. not Tooo Bad?] - or questioning the need for opposition to this entire sordid idea. What kind of man would REQUIRE a CHILD to swear obediance to a flag? Well, I can think of a few kinds. #1. Pervert. But we'll leave that for now. #2. Control freak. Train them while they're young. Obey the flag! Did I mention that I represent the flag? #3. Fear. Someone who is afraid that the next generation just might change things that he's used to. Further - any near+ argument on this 'issue' - implies 0-knowledge of Mc Carthy, of HUAC, of SISS (Senate Internal Security Subcommittee) of the Berkeley Professorial Oaths and the many learned screeds generated by just that fiasco alone.. ie of DECADES of recent U.S. History. Yup. Don't forget the Hitler Youth and the Soviet indoctrination programs for their kids. Rather simply put, a FREE society does not REQUIRE that CHILDREN recite oaths. Oaths are for ADULTS who can understand the words and the meaning and the implications. Maybe we deserve what's on the horizon. We just may have become dumbed-down to the stage: Too Stupid to Survive. Evolution. We've stopped breeding for intelligence. Even amongst the, supposedly, educated crowd here. Look at the arguments FOR it. Nothing about what it will ACCOMPLISH. Just "I don't think it's as bad as you say it is". Bell curve. While there are some people who are just not as intelligent as others, could it be that there are individuals who DESIRE more external control in their lives? I believe that to be so. In a random group, you will have leaders, followers, those who don't do either, the leaders who want more control over the followers, and the followers who want to turn all the "hard" choices over to their leaders. Think about it on a continuum. At one extreme, the anarchist. At the other extreme, the submissive who actively seeks authority figures. That isn't quite correct but it will do for now. The search for absolution in a world of too much choice.
Post #63,339 by boxley 11/16/02 10:11:30 PM Reply	nit when did we ever breed for intelligence after slavery was abolished? most people breed for fun, others shouldnt be allowed to reproduce. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,348 by Brandioch 11/16/02 11:41:10 PM Reply	Many years ago. Before the invention of the "grocery store". If you couldn't out think and out fight a yam or a grub, you didn't eat. Since then, things have been going downhill.
Post #63,591 by mhuber 11/18/02 11:53:16 AM Reply	The link was broken way before that The utility of intelligence beyond that of yer basic squirrel for raw survival just isn't demonstrable. Brandioch's examples show that: you don't have to be a rocket scientist to outsmart yams and grubs. And in the wild, all the cleverness in the world isn't as handy as fast feet or good tree-skills when a tiger identifies you as lunch. Intelligence is for outsmarting other humans. The fact that it is also handy for other things is purely accidental. ---- Whatever
Post #63,644 by Ashton 11/18/02 3:54:10 PM Reply	Even more basic - Language was invented that men might disguise their thoughts from one another. ;-)
Post #63,650 by Another Scott 11/18/02 4:03:57 PM Reply	Evolution. Hi Mike, The utility of intelligence beyond that of yer basic squirrel for raw survival just isn't demonstrable. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=40358\|Post 40358] might be of interest to you. Some researchers believe that excessive brain power evolved to attract mates. Cheers, Scott.
Post #63,659 by Arkadiy 11/18/02 4:37:12 PM Reply	You can't be serious, can you? Please say you aren't. Things like spears arrows and stone cutters, and use of sinew to sew and fire and domestication of animals- they were all feats of intelligence. Our megahertz count advances are just pale shadow of that intelligence. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #65,078 by mhuber 11/26/02 2:32:00 AM Reply	100% serious. I agree that the advancements of prehistoric people reflect intellectual acheivements that make our technological wonders look pathetic. And that they have survival value. But in the huge span from the brain of a badger to that of something able to grok the value of saving a good pointed stick for later, much less sharpening it, a big brain is good only for dealing with other members of your pack. Not that the advantage is entirely sexual - a smarter social animal is often able to get a bigger share of the food, a sleeping spot next to a cliff where there is less rain, etc. But for raw survival against the rest of the world? Nah. ---- Whatever
Post #65,149 by Arkadiy 11/26/02 11:12:14 AM Reply	In that huge span brain was used mostly as signal processing instrument. Dolphin's brain is huge, and 2/3 of it is dedicated to echolocation. Do you think it has no survival value for dolphin? The appearance of stereo vision required a huge growth in brain power. Do you think it has no survival value for predators? You seem to assume that animal brains are used for thinking. I don't think so ( :) ). Every major advance in capablities requires some more processing power to control it. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #65,167 by mhuber 11/26/02 1:24:50 PM Reply	What advance in capabilities? Other than intelligence, humans are remarkable in: 1) Manual dexterity - unless compared to other primates. 2) Color vision 3) extreme endurance in a patheticaly slow run None of which seems to me to require the hardware capabilities that make Einstein and Mozart possible. Granted, binocular color vision requires some rather major signal processing capabilities. But not enough to explain a brain that big. And what does that signal processing buy you in the wild? Particularly when driven by relatively weak eyes and ineffective predatory capabilities. A human without tools is a lousy enough predator that binocular vision is an almost complete waste. Prey that is slow enough and close enough that you or I can kill it without tools we can find with one eye. We'd get lots more milage, as predators, out of better fingernails. Actualy, there is one raw survival capability that a big brain could give a non-tool-user: orienteering. A smart critter can go places - and get back - better than one that is only able to outsmart a yam and realize a large predator is trouble. But there are lots of ways to develope that capability without going to the trouble of a brain size large enough to commonly kill a mother in the birth process. No, I'm pretty sure that our species has big brains for, well, politics. That they are also good for arts and sciences is a happy accident. ---- Whatever
Post #65,171 by Arkadiy 11/26/02 1:35:58 PM Reply	You're mixing 2 discussions here... First, what was driving brain size before humans. My answer - things like stereo color vision and echolocation and dexterity. Kind of hard to live in trees without binocular vision. Easy to miss a branch. Second, whether another wave of brain size increase, between monkeys and humans provided humans with some survival advantages. My answer is yes, see a post above. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #63,696 by ben_tilly 11/18/02 10:23:57 PM Reply	Can't find a reference right now... But I believe that coevolution towards increased brain size as a portion of body weight has been demonstrated in predator prey interactions. Actually I found several references that did say exactly that, but buried as a line item in class lecture notes. I would probably have better luck if I had (and could point you to) a standard textbook.. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #63,708 by boxley 11/18/02 10:43:04 PM Reply	are you implying meateaters are smarter or that carrots are prey :-) thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
Post #63,709 by ben_tilly 11/18/02 10:48:24 PM Reply	Neither I am saying that over millions of years both lions and gazelles are gradually getting smarter as each adjusts for the capability of the other. (As well as faster, with better vision, etc.) Humans are, of course, well off the trendline. :-) Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #63,715 by JayMehaffey 11/18/02 11:26:04 PM Reply	Gould questioned that Stephen Jay Gould did an article for his long running series where he argued that the intelligence of herbivores was actually a random walk. If I understood and am remember it correctly, it went like this. For any particular species of herbivore, if you trace the cranial capacity of it's decendents, there is an equal chance of it having a higher and lower capacity. With the exception of course that there is a practical mininum necissary for the animal to function. This sort of bounded random walk creates the illusion of a directed trend because the the highest value and the average value tend to go up over time. Jay
Post #63,717 by ben_tilly 11/18/02 11:45:07 PM Reply	If he wrote about it... then that article is slipping my mind. Based on [link\|http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Book_Reviews/gould-full_house.htm\|http://fp.bio.utk.ed...ld-full_house.htm] I think I know which book to look in to see if he talks about the far more restricted herbivore example that I had in mind. Furthermore even if Gould did talk about it, he is not always right. Or he might have been talking about a more general trend which this specific subtrend is an exception of. My recollection is that this was somewhat of a standard textbook example. For instance look on page 4 of [link\|http://biosci.usc.edu/courses/2002-spring/documents/bisc313-Coevolution.pdf\|http://biosci.usc.ed...3-Coevolution.pdf] to see it listed along with other standard exmples of coevolution. And [link\|http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL107/w02_cowen/coevolutionadv.html\|http://www-geology.u...evolutionadv.html] gives me the following reference: Radinsky, L. 1978. Evolution of brain size in carnivores and ungulates. American Naturalist 112, 815-831. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #63,916 by JayMehaffey 11/19/02 9:54:33 PM Reply	Overstated the case What I was thinking of came from Full House, but the argument I mentioned wasn't against intelligence specifically. It was against the idea that there is a tend in increasing animal size over time. In the book he argues against tends towards increasing size and increasing complexity. But he only mentions intelligence in passing, while pointing to research that shows that the increasing development of the vertebra over time is a random walk Jay
Post #63,942 by ben_tilly 11/19/02 11:11:52 PM Reply	That fits my recollection as well :-) "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]

Welcome to IWETHEY!