lend me a fiver!

[piccione]

////It isn't purely biological at all, Piccione.////

The herd instinct is, the individual/collective (im/moral) act isn’t.

Submitting individuality to merge into an ‘anonymous’, homogenous group ‘helps’ the individual who has moral scruples to overcome these and dismiss personal responsibility – which serves the cultural /and/ biological selfish purpose of self-preservation in a system/group when ‘outnumbered’. And although the 'moral awareness' is conscious, the herd instinct behaviour is not.

/////Its only partly biological which is why being brought up in Nazi Germany is an excellent example of this so called 'altruistic gene' being rendered useless by environmental factors.////

There /is/ no ‘gene’ for (cultural) ‘altruism’ (ie being ‘good’ to others). And biological altruism is what, ultimately, we would describe as ‘selfish’ in cultural terms. It’s about self-preservation, and preservation of one’s family/group/species.

Jeezzz! My 9-year-old nephew has a better grasp of the basics of biology. But then again, he is a /clever/ boy. ;D

Perhaps I’m expecting too much……

/////Ah but it was you who suggested that the Commandants were merely being 'altruistic' to their fellow germans.////

Yes, I’m /definitely/ expecting too much.....

/////You obviously - as with many - have a "bee in your bonnet! about religion and its interesting that such folk are just as intolerant as the fundamentalists we should all abhor.///// and /////In other words you're an oddball fundamentalist with an axe to grind.////

Now now…calm down and have a look through the thread at /whose/ ‘arguments’ are simplistic and ‘fundamentalist'....

It doesn’t do you any favours to ‘reply’ to what you’d have /liked/ me to have said so it fits your prejudice. In fact, that’s yet /another/ debating fallacy. Looks like we’ve uncovered your err.....hidden talent.

Y’know you should take a leaf out of Sands’ book. He never loses his countenance when he runs out of arguments.... ;D

Or is this your idea of ‘shooting’ my posts ‘down in flames’?
I sincerely hope not!

I aint seen a /spark/ yet - albeit plenty of hot air.....

/////For example you completely ignore many of the beneficial benefits such as the giving of alms and the role of Abbeys in helping the poor and poverty stricken whilst adopting the role of apologist for the Nazis.////

And where exactly did I hold the church responsible for the Nazi atrocities, or, in fact, even accused them of ‘apologising’ them? I wouldn’t accuse the church of compliance anymore or less then any other, non-religious citizen in Nazi Germany (btw /you/ brought that example up, not me). Simply because 'I think' they are as human and fallible as any non-religious person. And, likewise, there were many non-religiously motivated, ‘officially compliant’ people who helped/supported/hid those persecuted by the Nazis.

////Yes and you use the Army as an example of this altruism, even the German Army. Would it not have more practical explanation such as the small fact that if you don't obey orders you are put in front on a Firing Squad, Piccy.////

And what /is/ compliance out of fear other then a (‘natural’, and /humanly/ perfectly understandable) act of self-preservation – which is exactly the point I’ve been making all along. /Moral/ jugement /aside/. Humans are neither biologically nor culturally ‘programmed’ to /wanting/ to die or coming to harm, no matter what ‘group’ they belong to. No species is.

‘Higher authority’ has two fundamental influences on humans: If the individual is an immediate part of this authority, it gives them a sense of importance and superiority over others. Therefore, they will comply with that authority (and defend it) to maintain that status, even if it goes against their own moral convictions.

If they are subjected to (or oppressed by) that authority, they will comply with the masses out of fear (ie self-preservation). They will give up their individuality and dismiss personal responsibility for acting against their moral convictions, and thereby maintain a sense of ‘self-worth’. Instead, responsibility is shifted onto that authority and the whole ‘anonymous’ group.

/Very few/ within that social group, those with a strong sense of (cultural) individuality, will rebel – at the risk of being killed/harmed. As, for example, the ‘White Rose’ in Nazi Germany did. Hans and Sophie Scholl had radical /cultural/ views opposed to Nazi ideology because of their family background – ie /cultural/, parental ‘indoctrination’ (from early childhood). /Radical/ /cultural/ convictions, whether ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ (ie /morally/ ‘deluded’ or not) are likely to overrule a ‘natural’ urge for self-preservation (ie compliance with the masses). But the /majority/ don’t have such individual radical convictions, and a ‘natural’ sense of self-preservation prevails.

The strictly /moral/ reality is, of course, that the passive (compliant) majority is as guilty as those who are ‘active’ participants‘. But that is an easy enough judgment to make from a neutral, ‘external’ position of safety. I lived in Belfast for a while in the early 90s. And although the /vast majority/ of Catholics and Protestants I met were moderate, unable to understand why they could not live ‘in peace with each other', they were /all/ compliant with their own social group by ‘automated thinking’ (not by active participation), without even (consciously) realising the contradiction of their ‘opinions’. Yet without their compliance, the ‘active’, radical minority would not have stood a chance.

This is all nicely ‘clear cut’ in the extreme cases of oppressive/totalitarian authorities ruling the majority (and especially for 'outsiders'). But in ‘milder’ forms, we have the same phenomenon in every day life, in /our/ society, and we are even /less/ aware of our ‘automated thinking’: Personal responsibility is dismissed, and instead ascribed to a ‘higher authority’ for blame. It just aint so easy to recognise that 'flaw' when you're /part/ of that system.

This is exactly what I've been arguing with Sands in the drugs discussion: That people don’t take personal contributary responsibility for the ‘dysfunctions’ (....hate that buzz word!) of our society (ie bias and compliance), but rather blame consecutive governments. They declare themselves ‘helpless victims of the higher authority’, and therefore dismiss responsibility for their very own contributions to these ‘dysfunctional’ developments.

[Daz Madrigal]

Whilst Sandy is busy writing his response I'll just step in to make a brief intervention.

To use your example, without the quiet compliance of fellow Catholics and Protestants the small minority of radicals could not have survived.

What insight!

We're guilty of automated thinking - as you say, very true in Sandy's case - in which personal responsibility is ignored by blaming it on a 'higher authority' such as the Government.

We should therefore rely more on our own 'personal responsibility'.

Well we're all anxious to learn from your example, Piccy, and possibly you can deign to give us a few specifics on how to apply it - just as long as GW isn't one...I've had quite enough of that already.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< /Very few/ within that social group, those with a strong sense of (cultural) individuality, will rebel – at the risk of being killed/harmed. As, for example, the ‘White Rose’ in Nazi Germany did. Hans and Sophie Scholl had radical /cultural/ views opposed to Nazi ideology because of their family background – ie /cultural/, parental ‘indoctrination’ (from early childhood). /Radical/ /cultural/ convictions, whether ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ (ie /morally/ ‘deluded’ or not) are likely to overrule a ‘natural’ urge for self-preservation >>

Well thats something of an over statement. Self preservation almost always wins out. To bring things back down to earth for a rare moment one occasionally hears of a man who bravely steps in to stop a bank robber.

Either he wasn't aware the robber was armed or if not somewhat misguided.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6690771.stm

Fortunately he survived and will at least be able to enjoy 'heroic status'. That will be of little recompence if he remains severely handicapped but thus are the consequences of having a "strong sense of (cultural) individuality".

[piccione]

////What insight!////

Not really, no. I pointed it out purely for /your/ benefit, since you seemed to have some difficulties grasping this very basic concept of human behaviour/psychology. But apparently you now have.

We got somewhere in the end. ;D

////Well we're all anxious to learn from your example, Piccy, and possibly you can deign to give us a few specifics on how to apply it – ////

Ah yes, a ‘personalised’ example....

Well you already know that I see it as my ‘personal duty’ to kill Christians in my spare time. Smoking them out of their dens and hunting them down requires quite a bit of creativity, fitness and personal risk-taking. It’s sheer luck that I haven’t sustained any major injuries so far. But ah – the sacrifices the ‘responsible individual’ makes for the common good.

Alternatively, you can look for some clues in the last drugs discussion I had with Sands.

‘Learning’ requires some effort……

////…..just as long as GW isn't one...I've had quite enough of that already.////

Yes - as it happens, it’s quite noticeable in your posts when you’ve been out in the sun for too long. Which seems to happen a lot. Where do you live – in southern Spain?

Maybe you should consider wearing a hat, or hang out in the shade for a change.

////Either he wasn't aware the robber was armed or if not somewhat misguided./////

How much time do you think he spent on ‘ ‘thinking through’ all possible scenarios and consequences of his ‘planned’ action?

////Fortunately he survived and will at least be able to enjoy 'heroic status'. That will be of little recompence if he remains severely handicapped but thus are the consequences of having a "strong sense of (cultural) individuality".////

A strong sense of cultural individuality is only required when acting /against/ ‘majority rule’ – which clearly isn’t the case here. He did not ostracise himself from his social group by his action – he acted /according/ to majority rule ie ‘conformed’. He followed the ‘altruistic’ instinct of /supporting’/ his social group.

This does, of course, not mean that certain individuals are not more ‘inclined’ to carry out such acts.

There are some interesting studies about ‘why’ people commit spontaneous, altruistic heroic acts. They are committed unpredictably, within a certain situation, by very ‘normal’ people – mostly men. Next to greater physical strength -obviously- men have a greater ‘natural’ propensity for risk-taking. Which is one of the reasons why more men commit (violent) crime. But that natural trait also leads them to 'commit' more individual heroic acts that may endanger their own lives. And those in need of ‘rescuing’ are also mostly men.

Women are more inclined to ‘rescue’ (at personal risk) when they know the person in need of rescuing (ie a family member, especially a child).

Overall, most ‘rescuers’ are from rural areas, where social ties and a ‘sense of community’ are stronger. ‘Intuitively’, there is an ‘expectations’ that ‘altruism’ will be returned. This is fundamental to human motivation for helping/supporting others/their group: It’s not just about ‘selflessly’ supporting others – we expected to be equally supported by individuals/our social group.

Long-term, ‘planned’ caring traits are much more influenced by (cultural) up-bringing/learning. But the propensities for both (caring, helping or, on the other hand, being uncaring, committing ‘evil’ acts) are there in /all/ humans. And unless seriously pathological, detached from all (human) reality, there is no (even serious) criminal who is, or has not been, also ‘caring’ to another individual/group – overriding criminal acts /aside/.

Whereas those who have a tendency to commit violent crime are what we, in cultural terms, would call ‘losers’ (those who, biologically, have little to lose in terms of reproductive fitness, since they are less likely to spread their genes), ‘carers’, and also ‘rescuers’, are accepted members of ‘mainstream’ society (ie ‘inclusively fit’). But /rescuers/ are more likely to come from lower income groups.

These are, of course, /general/ trends.

As for (collective) evil, here is an interview with social psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment, about what he calls the ‘Lucifer Effect’:

www.edge.org/video/dsl/zimbardo07.html

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

Whilst Sandy is busy writing his response I'll just step in to make a brief intervention.

To use your example, without the quiet compliance of fellow Catholics and Protestants the small minority of radicals could not have survived.

What insight!

We're guilty of automated thinking - as you say, very true in Sandy's case - in which personal responsibility is ignored by blaming it on a 'higher authority' such as the Government.

We should therefore rely more on our own 'personal responsibility'.

Well we're all anxious to learn from your example, Piccy, and possibly you can deign to give us a few specifics on how to apply it - just as long as GW isn't one...I've had quite enough of that already.

Now then Daz don't try to pass the buck of Piccy's long winded postings onto me.

You have dug a deep hole for yourself. I learnt to stop digging against the inevitable torrent long ago.

Although I would like to just show our omniscient Piccy this:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6551327.stm

But I do note that your 'personal responsibility', Daz, does not extend to any concern whatsoever for the people of the planet present or future, as your more immediate priority is for getting a good sun-tan.

[Daz Madrigal]

I wouldn't mind if he managed to be amusing with it but its merely irritating.

I never had any problem with Gus but as with Piccione you can only go so far trotting out the same stuff so thats the real reason he went out with a bang and not a whimper.

In one of his occasional lucid moments he did suggest that some soldier who had jumped over a live grenade to save his comrades - instead of shouting 'RUN!!!!' like most sensible people wasn't so much a hero as a complete plonker.

So he wasn't daft...as I say I think the 'throwing a hissy fit' and stomping off happens when you've come to the end of the road and looking back the complaints of OP and co were perfectly legitimate.

I think OP is also tired of Piccione - in fact we're ALL tired of Piccione. So I'll just let things linger unless its worthy of attention. He's a slightly better version of EMC..all waffle, no substance.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< This does, of course, not mean that certain individuals are not more ‘inclined’ to carry out such acts.

There are some interesting studies about ‘why’ people commit spontaneous, altruistic heroic acts. They are committed unpredictably, within a certain situation, by very ‘normal’ people – mostly men. Next to greater physical strength -obviously- men have a greater ‘natural’ propensity for risk-taking. Which is one of the reasons why more men commit (violent) crime. But that natural trait also leads them to 'commit' more individual heroic acts that may endanger their own lives. And those in need of ‘rescuing’ are also mostly men >>

<< sigh >>

Yes we're most fascinated by all these 'spontaneous, altruistic and heroic acts' but then again people have a multitude of different reasons for acting like they do during Warfare so give me an example outside of it.

I mean seeing there are so many of them just a few shouldn't be so hard to find...why be so coy, Piccy?



..see, Mel, I'm makin some use of your emoticons. As they're there we may as well use em! In fact thats an order!

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

Whilst Sandy is busy writing his response I'll just step in to make a brief intervention.

To use your example, without the quiet compliance of fellow Catholics and Protestants the small minority of radicals could not have survived.

What insight!

We're guilty of automated thinking - as you say, very true in Sandy's case - in which personal responsibility is ignored by blaming it on a 'higher authority' such as the Government.

We should therefore rely more on our own 'personal responsibility'.

Well we're all anxious to learn from your example, Piccy, and possibly you can deign to give us a few specifics on how to apply it - just as long as GW isn't one...I've had quite enough of that already.

Now then Daz don't try to pass the buck of Piccy's long winded posts onto me.

Buck off, Sandy, its all yours!

Only YOU have the MENSA level IQ to understand this twaddle.

[piccione]

madrigalman said:

I wouldn't mind if he managed to be amusing with it but its merely irritating.

I never had any problem with Gus but as with Piccione you can only go so far trotting out the same stuff so thats the real reason he went out with a bang and not a whimper.

In one of his occasional lucid moments he did suggest that some soldier who had jumped over a live grenade to save his comrades - instead of shouting 'RUN!!!!' like most sensible people wasn't so much a hero as a complete plonker.

So he wasn't daft...as I say I think the 'throwing a hissy fit' and stomping off happens when you've come to the end of the road and looking back the complaints of OP and co were perfectly legitimate.

I think OP is also tired of Piccione - in fact we're ALL tired of Piccione. So I'll just let things linger unless its worthy of attention. He's a slightly better version of EMC..all waffle, no substance.

Awwww.....now there’s an ‘altruistic act’ if ever I saw one: Daz speaking up in defense of (and for) the herd of sheep. A truly heroic act.....

You asked for a specific, ‘personalised’ example? You got it.

You’re absolutely right, of course. The true motifs for individual ‘altruism’ are often questionable, and not always so ‘heroic’ at closer examination. It’s easy enough to hide behind ‘speak up’ for the majority.....

You’re compliance speaks for your err ‘sense of community’. I’m not so sure about your /common sense/ though. But that’s the very nature of wanting to fit in – that individual common sense (if ever there /was/ one) goes out of the window.

However, at closer examination it turns out the ‘altruistic act’ isn’t so selfless after all. The real aim is to gain ‘public support’ by being ‘manipulatively’ compliant, defensive and ‘representative’ of the ‘herd’ so you have some ‘back up’: You ‘subtly’ drag Gus in as an ‘argument’ (‘against’ me - because I defended him) - someone who has got absolutely nothing to do with me or my posts, but who -conveniently for you- is ostracized by exactly that ‘herd’ you ‘manipulatively’ defend. And what could be strategically more advantageous than ‘appealing’ to punky, who has made it perfectly clear what she thinks of Gus?

Mutual give and take eh? You ‘defend’ /them/, they will back /you/ up, and you’re ‘out of the woods’ without ever having to come up with an /actual/ argument. Face saved. ;D

It’s a cheap trick, Daz. But I’m sure you’re well aware of that. That’s why you tried to hide it behind some rhetoric of ‘subtlety’. It didn’t work – soz. It’s rather obvious – and also rather unfair on Gus. But never mind that....

What are you so afraid of ‘on your own’ btw? Surely I’m not that scary am I?

Don’t be such a bloody coward, hiding behind others, and stick with ‘attacking’ /my/ posts or /me/ if you like, since that’s what you seem to prefer when you run out of arguments.

But leave out the ‘we’ and do so on your /own/ behalf, and with your /own/ ‘arguments’. Otherwise it’s /me/ who’s going to ‘just let things linger’, since I don’t waste my time with spineless wimps.

I promise I can cope btw. In fact I find your err ‘attacks’ quite amusing, because they /are/ so easy to see through.

Go on - amuse me some more.... ;D

[Daz Madrigal]

Yes I always run with the herd, Piccy.

Unfortunately you're running in the opposite direction which suggests there can only be one outcome.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< rather unfair on Gus. But never mind that.... >>

Well lets hope it IS unfair on Gus - its about bloomin' time he took some of us own medicine!

<< but never mind that..>>

Err you just have minded, Piccy, so its a bit late to back track now.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< You asked for a specific, ‘personalised’ example? You got it. >>

Have we?..its like looking for a needle in a haystack, only to find that that the needles stuck in your arm (but thats a low blow but a fair one considering your fanfare for drug addiction).

Its like you're bizarre ramblings on the height of americans - a subject of no interest to any of us - which with a subtle screech of gear shifts transformed itself into a comparison of health systems.

But you never get to the point. We had similar trouble with another member who's only raison d'etre was to attempt to convince us he was 'cleverer than the rest of us' by talking some of the most pseudo intellectual pretentious clap-trap ever written.

But hey..I'm not quite the coward you suggest - he's welcome on here to put me right any old time.

As is Gus, by the way, or anyone else or even those two bent leftist loons that are always logging on here to read my pearls of wisdom. Come on in, boys..the waters lovely!

I'd give an sessement on you, Piccione, if you were important enough. but as no-one bothers reading any of your posts anyway the question must be asked - whats the point in wasting time?

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Daz speaking up in defense of (and for) the herd of sheep. A truly heroic act..... >>

Theres a glaring flaw in your argument here, Piccione.

Its in your curious presupposition that the 'herd mentality' is always wrong. Now very often it IS wrong but lets not be to unfair on the majority - on occasion they get it right and deliver the correct verdict. In your case the majority verdict is the correct one - your a crashing bore.

Nevertheless, strange though it may seem I can't find nothing particularly objectionable in most of your posts..but that may be because you rarely get to the point.

I'll give an example. You almost became interesting when talking about a two-tier health system but then chickened out by performing your usual vanishing trick. You are simply not strong minded enough to proffer an example.

You could have expressed an opinion, Piccy, but as per usual you didn't quite have the courage to write it down...you ducked out again.

I'd have gone for the jugular and come up with a few specifics..lemme see..so many to choose from:-

Is it fair for the rich to pay to see a GP whilst the poor don't.

Lets raise the bar - a place your all too familiar with - and ask any interesting question. If someone chooses to pay £2,000 to jump the queue for an Op is THAT fair?

Many here baulked at the idea so suggested a compromise in which the NHS contributed ha;f the amount and the patient the other far more of a fast track to treatment but within the NHS. Again some suggested it wasn't fair?

Is it fair?

No-one knows from you, Piccy, because you have an allergy to spitting out the truth. You're whats known as a professional clever d1ck and I'm afraid the majority of us simply cannot abide clever d1cks - and for once the herd mentalitys verdict is the correct one

By your assumption the herd mentality is by definition incorrect, in which case it makes one wonder why we bother with Jury Service?

No doubt you could do a far better job all by yourself. Piccy. And as usual its only yourself that believes it - the rest of us can't be bothered.

[sandywinder]

I think this is fair:



But not the prices they are charging.

[piccione]

/////Theres a glaring flaw in your argument here, Piccione.

Its in your curious presupposition that the 'herd mentality' is always wrong./////

Why should I say that the herd instinct is always ‘wrong’ when I have been arguing all along on this thread that it is perfectly /natural/ – which you kept on disputing.....

Funny how you don’t anymore, when /you/ have been ‘exposed’ of being in the same boat. Suddenly you get all defensive of that herd instinct. It’s that old mirror trap again.....

The herd instinct (and even ‘swimming with the fish’) is perfectly natural – it’s your /deliberate/, ‘manipulative’ act of /hiding behind/ that is sheer cowardice. And you’re doing it again in this post – which can only mean your holding your hands up to being a spineless wimp……

////Now very often it IS wrong but lets not be to unfair on the majority - on occasion they get it right and deliver the correct verdict. ////

Yes it’s ‘wrong’ in /others/, but it’s ‘right’ in you – I understood that much.

As for the rest……

If you say ‘that’s complete twaddle’ and think that, on its own, is enough of an ‘argument’ to dignify a reply, ie an /argument/, then think again. Having an ‘opinion’ is easy enough, backing it up is what takes effort. That’s an effort you very rarely make.

You see, that’s the great difference between you and Sands for example: He might say ‘’that’s complete twaddle’ but he makes an argument to back up /why/ he thinks it is. You hardly ever do do. You hide behind a lot of hot air (ie your ‘opinion’), leave it at that, and think you’ve made an ‘impressively’ statement. I don’t think so mate. I’m not playing your game. It’s /your/ beef, not mine.

What you want is a ‘platform’ to ‘perform’ – and isn’t ‘your’ board a great opportunity for that? I have only read a few of your posts on that other board, but I noticed that your posting style is very different. Overall, I’d call it much more ‘compliant’. Why is that?

And from what I have read of your posts on here, you don’t have a /real/ and deep interest in anything much – not even in GW. Lots of ‘opinions’, yes, but the real interest is missing, the ‘passion’, ie the substance. You might have in real life, but on here it’s just a ‘game’. Whereas Sands, on the other hand, /has/ a real interest, in the subject, and in a discussion.

In fact, you are so obsessed with ‘performing’ that you get yourself in a complete muddle when you actually make a (shallow) argument.

In other words, you just love to hear yourself ‘talk’, no matter about what. Some would probably say it’s a narcissistic tendency. But I wager a ‘random’ guess that it’s rather more than that. Part of that guess (and it’s not more than that) is why I don’t /really/ believe you’re a spineless wimp, even if it may appear so. If I /did/ believe it, I would have ‘given up’ a long time ago.

///// I'd give an sessement on you, Piccione, if you were important enough. but as no-one bothers reading any of your posts anyway the question must be asked - whats the point in wasting time?////

Well you’ve already /did/ ‘waste your time’ on that in the past – remember?

PS: ////Lets raise the bar - a place your all too familiar with - and ask any interesting question. If someone chooses to pay £2,000 to jump the queue for an Op is THAT fair?////

Yes I think it /is/ fair, because we /all/ have created the system that makes it possible. Money makes the world go round. We wanted it that way, now we have to deal with it.