Ludwig - I didn't concede anything. Rather, I apologised for being ill-mannered. It's not the same thing.

Oh, I see Ceej. While conceding that you were ill-mannered, you didn’t concede anything! (:>|

“Sadly, CJMorgan, OLO's resident birdbrain, manages to prove daily that some people are just tools...”

Not nice Antiseptic….. but funny. Mmm mwa hahahaaa!

Alright, enough puerile CJ-bashing behaviour from me. Now to some serious stuff….

“In short, what has made humans so successful as a species…”

Not so sure we are all that successful as a species CJ. There are too many millions of people living miserable lives and we are just brazenly destroying our future wellbeing, to mention just a couple of points that sit at stark odds with any interpretation of success.

When we bring cultural and social practices in line with self-preservation, then we’ll become a little more successful. Similarly, when we start using our technological abilities to secure a healthy future, instead of basically to destroy it as we are now, we’ll become a tad more deserved of the successful species tag.

“…we are able to move beyond the constraints of our biological inheritance. Gender roles are a good example of that.”

Hmmm, it seems that the broadening of gender roles beyond our traditional ‘biological inheritance’ has not done us much good at all, in terms of our success as a species.

*Not so sure we are all that successful as a species CJ.*

Well exactly! The story ain't over yet and all that we have shown
so far is that our evolutionary niche is a slightly larger brain,
plus by becoming bipedal, to pronounce consonant sounds, not just vowel
sounds like our primate cousins. That means far better communication
possibilities, to share knowledge. More then likely we are far too
stupid to live sustainably, so in the end will wipe ourselves out,
in the process of being "successful".

CJ, anthropology is about culture, not about neuroscience. The
days of the tabula rasa theory are well and truly over.

Fact is that twin studies of identical twins separated at birth,
show just how much nature still matters. Next thing in the 90s
neuroscience flourished, because finally we had machines to see what
is going on inside brains, we are not just guessing anymore, as we
did for thousands of years.

My point all along has been that nature influences our decisions.
We all know that we have certain innate tendencies. If a Piper
is strongly nurturing by nature and loves kids, her so called
"free will" is clearly going to decide to have some or work with
some. All the culture in the world is not going to make her
happy, being CEO of a company, in an office 70 hours a week.

That is my point. Our innate tendencies are going to influence our
decisions, just like CJs hard ons influenced his decisions to
masturbate, when he was a youngster.

So in other words, our biological inheritance still matters every day
and in every decision that we make, even if at the level of the
subconscious. Neuroscience can show that.

Yabby: << CJ, anthropology is about culture, not about neuroscience. >>

Come on Yabby - that's equivalent to me saying that sheep farming is about shearing, not livestock management, meat production etc. Did you actually read what I wrote? Anthropology has many branches and specialities, and cultural anthropology is just one of them. I think you're confusing anthropology with that postmodern pseudo-discipline, 'cultural studies'.

I agree that our biology (including our brains and nervous systems) is fundamental to humanity, but I disagree with the primacy that you give it. You seem to be obtusely unaware that there is a huge and ongoing debate about these issues among experts in these fields. You rattle on about neuroscience - have you heard of sociobiology?

Ludwig: << it seems that the broadening of gender roles beyond our traditional ‘biological inheritance’ has not done us much good at all, in terms of our success as a species >>

Would you care to elaborate on that? I would have thought that freeing women from relegation to breeding and housekeeping duties would have many adaptive effects, not least among them the demographic transition that occurs when women are educated and able to participate equally in the workplace.

CJ, the broadening of gender roles especially where women have much more opportunity to fill previously strictly male roles, is a good thing for women and no doubt also a good thing for the functioning of our society and others like it… in the short term.

But it has arguably not been good for the provision of a healthy future. It hasn’t led us onto the path of sustainability. It has been pretty well neutral in that regard.

It could have put us on the right track. The demographic transition that resulted was a huge positive spinoff….or at least it should have been. The resultant major reduction in the birthrate could have steered us straight towards a stable population and a sustainable high-quality-of-life future. But it has been totally overridden by absurdly high immigration and the raising of the birthrate due to the bloody god-awful baby bonus bribe.

Having a few women in powerful political positions, such as Gillard, Wong, Bligh, etc and lots of women in influential roles throughout our society hasn’t helped in the slightest to counter our addiction to the never-ending high-population-growth future-destroying paradigm.

*Come on Yabby - that's equivalent to me saying that sheep farming is about shearing, not livestock management, meat production etc*

Rubbish.

CJ, you are in your 50s? So you studied anthropology in the 70s?

The focus of anthropology is on humans, no wonder many of them know
so little about other species. I once spent a year or two on an
email list with American anthropology lecturers, their knowledge
of primatology was dismal to say the least.

Sociobiology became in issue with Edward Wilsom in 1975. It
includes many disciplines, anthropology being one of many, but
neuroscience is not one of them.

Neuroscience really took off in the 90s, when equipment became
available to see what was going on in those brains. Before that,
it was largely guesswork, commonly wrong. Or they would rely
on people with bits of their brains damaged etc, to see what
personality changes occured.

Of course I'm aware of the many arguments going on, but I'm also
aware that many of them are going on for political reasons rather
then scientific ones. Many with a particular social agenda don't
really want science to interfere with it.

Science today is extremely specialised. Just because you passed
anthropology CJ, does not mean that you know anything about neuroscience.

You could always start by learning here :)

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

CJ.
Thanks for that.
I grew up there amongst the natives. Most of what I've written comes from there/then 50's- 60's. It was a wondrous place then.
The things I saw and absorbed were amazing. Much of it sadly, has been corrupted and passed into history. If only I had the skills and the knowledge to study them properly. As a liklik mongey to a youth it was simply all there, no biggy.
The time there meant I straddling two cultures and prone to reading all manner of information. The split mind set has stayed with me. I guess it helps explain the contradictions in me.
Any papers/books I can/should read?

Back on the topic. The two clear consequences of Anthropology et al is that the importance of concept of 'Context' has paramount importance in analysis. A bit like an archaeologist being handed an ancient vase as opposed to finding it in situ. Without context the vase at best an antique, an object...context makes it a means of useful learning. Sadly I find most enthusiasts/well read individuals tend to under value it