Emotions and the role they play in our survival.

[too-open-minded]

Emotions Have aided animals in their survival. Anger will give an animal the courage to fight. Fear will keep the animal out of harms way. Greed will make the animal strive to sustain ones life. Love will make the animal find companionship and work together to sustain life for each other.

 

Emotions have played a major role in our survival.

 

How exactly we came to evolve them. what came first the chicken or the egg? I don't want to argue this.

 

If you think emotions haven't aided survival, I will respectively listen to your argument.

 

Side Note - I think were way more likely to survive loving each-other than we are hating each-other.

[ecoli]

what is it that you DO want to argue because I don't really see a coherent point to this.

[too-open-minded]

I dont like to argue

 

I like to respectively share opinions and views so that we can together form the most well constructed perception on the subject.

 

I'm just tired of everyone always trying to argue. I was hoping in the midst of "arguing" with someone, I could open their mind.

 

I was stating that emotions are natures way of telling us to survive and its time we move on from things like greed and anger.

 

I was just hoping I didn't have to say it and somone could see the direction I'm pointing in, guess I'm just crazy and only make sense to myself :/

[Ringer]

So, just to be devil's advocate, why should we move on from things such as greed and anger? They can be pretty useful at times for motivation, protection, etc. even if it has negative after effects.

[too-open-minded]

Alot of people hear what i say about emotions and get this misconception, its a good observation though.

 

If anything anger and greed wont be wiped out, but just refined. Resulting in less negative side effects.

 

Preserving all the emotions we can is important because we do not want to be desynthesized, I don't really think this would be a problem though.

[Ringer]

I think you going for a bit of a starry eyed scenario with this.

[too-open-minded]

When I think about how hard my childhood was, then compare my "walk in the park" childhood to children in poverty stricken areas. I don't cry, I sob. I just want to prevent any child from going through the things I endured and stop as much suffering for anyone as possible.

 

whats your point?

[Bill Angel]

People who make decisions based on their emotions usually make poor decisions.

I think that most violent crimes result from people's emotions overcoming the restraints of rational decision making.

Frequently parents, swept up by their emotions, will murder their own children. I don't believe that animals ever murder their own children. It's obvious I think that animals that did do so would become extinct.

[Ringer]

When I think about how hard my childhood was, then compare my "walk in the park" childhood to children in poverty stricken areas. I don't cry, I sob. I just want to prevent any child from going through the things I endured and stop as much suffering for anyone as possible.

 

A lot of people have terrible experiences in childhood and a few may have been avoided if anger didn't was gone, but there are plenty that wouldn't be as well. It's not so much just anger so much as people just being @ssholes.

 

whats your point?

 

It's your thread I was just trying to take a guess at what kind of discussion you were wanting. If you mean my point in the last comment, starry eyed was used to mean ridiculously optimistic.

[Prometheus]

So, just to be devil's advocate, why should we move on from things such as greed and anger? They can be pretty useful at times for motivation, protection, etc. even if it has negative after effects.

 

I like the devil. Two points.

 

If we accept emotions as evolutionary products (i don't think anyone is arguing against that), then they are still subject to selection pressures. They will therefore still be evolving, and may well wax, wane or change. Pet theory: psychopathy (and its emotional milieu, or lack of) will probably rise given that we now reward this behaviour with big city jobs with stupid bonuses, and assuming these people breed more.

 

Just because something has evolved it does mean it is still useful, and shouldn't be discarded. The appendix may be an example, though that might still have uses. The slight curvature of the back from the days when we didn't walk upright, but which now confers no benefit, just a propensity to back pain in later life, might be a better example.

 

 

People who make decisions based on their emotions usually make poor decisions.

I think that most violent crimes result from people's emotions overcoming the restraints of rational decision making.

Frequently parents, swept up by their emotions, will murder their own children. I don't believe that animals ever murder their own children. It's obvious I think that animals that did do so would become extinct.

 

It is impossible for an animal to murder - for that to happen there must be a conception that what one is doing is wrong. Animals act only on instinct/emotion, we however ostensibly have the capability to think beyond our emotions. So i agree. However, there is a case study in which a person lost their emotional functions from an industrial accident (it might even have been Phineas Gauge, but i forget). The person was unable to make even the most simple of decisions, such as what to wear to work, though was ''normal' in all other respects. This is often given as an example of how important our emotions are to guiding our behaviour even with trivial matters.

[nrobinson_12]

Animals do kill there own children, the do it all the time. If a mother suspects a sick or weak one in a litter, they will kill it. I presume that this is for survival purposes of the species all together, they don't want the weak and diseased genes to populate within the gene pool. I do agree that emotions are instinctual and help ensure survival, mostly because other animals have them as well. The only difference is, people associate thoughts and ideas with those emotions. Regardless if you were to have the most horrible of existence, or the grandest, emotions would still basically feel the the same. Granted, given the circumstances, you may feel certain emotions more than others, but that would effect your psyche, not the biological way in which emotions work. For example, if you're mad or scared, you more than likely would trigger adrenaline and noradrenaline, your fight or flight response mechanism, which is most definitely a survival instinct. If something were to cause elation, you would have an increase in feel good hormones serotonin and dopamine, which would make you want an experience again or help create stronger bonds. So you see, the biological responses would be the same because of evolution, how we interpret them and what we do with them is subjective.

 

*On a side note, I read another one of your posts, where you believe that the ideal school would be more like therapy, and that the children would get all the love and attention they need. I just want to say, that while I do wish you would have had a more pleasant and well adjusted childhood, since you elude to the fact it was anything but, I find that idea to be a huge step in the wrong direction. I'm not saying kids don't need nurturing and attention, but that needs to come from the home, not school. And further more, I think that it is important for kids to get upset; to be sad and angry; to experience disappointment, let down, and failure, because it is those things that teach us how to cope with the world and with life. I think a lot of kids are sheltered from the harsh realities of life and are unprepared to launch themselves out into the world because no one told them how hard it really was, hence the reason for so many 20 something dependents still living at home. (just to clarify, I am not advocating child abuse in any way shape or form, and have no intentions on offending anyone who was/is a victim thereof.)

[Phi for All]

I just want to prevent any child from going through the things I endured and stop as much suffering for anyone as possible.

I think all our emotions are valuable, as are our experiences. Until you have some kind of prescience that tells you ahead of time what lessons will be valuable to a child in later life, trying to prevent bad experiences could rob a child of a lesson they may need at another time. Trying to stop suffering sounds great, but sometimes the greatest harm comes from doing what you think is the greatest good. Avoiding emotions doesn't sound healthy/

[too-open-minded]

You guys I'm not saying lets wipe anger out, I'm saying were more likely to survive fallowing the emotion of love rather than anger.

 

I'm saying its mother natures way of telling us to survive.

 

I'm saying anger, a very useful emotion should be suppressed so that we don't let it affect our judgement so much.

 

Please drop the misconception everyone gets about my theory, I'm not saying we don't need anger.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

Hi, I just wanted to say that I share your view, only I do not think it is emotions.

 

I call them instincts. Instincts are what produce emotions.

 

Certain survival instincts and behavioral patterns promote survival and thus these behaviors are passed on.

 

The other thing that I have found is that these primal instincts that were passed on from very ancient ancestors never disappear. They stay present but are trump-able by more recent behaviors that may contradict them. The reason they stay in place is so that when the more recent behaviors begin to fail, the organism has something to fall back on. This is the idea of the lizard brain.

 

Evil in our society has its very source in these survival instincts. A lion that kills for sport is not evil, because he does not have behaviors that can trump this behavior. We, on the other hand, should be trumping violent behaviors such as these with more controlled behavior.

 

Survival is the root behavior, this root can spread into 3 main branches.

 

1. For survival, Nutrition is required

2. For survival, Procreation is required

3. For survival, avoiding death is required (at least as long as you can replicate)

 

These 3 branches further split out into more branches.

 

1. Nutrition

- Hunger instincts (try feeding a child with no hunger instinct)

- Territorial instincts (actually linked to all 3 main branches)

- Selfishness, Greed, and the need to acquire wealth (this is also linked to procreation but we will get to that)

- Breathing (oxygen is a required nutrition and conscious control over this is limited)

- Physiological processes (no conscious control over this, like a beating heart)

- ETC.

 

2. Procreation

- Alpha instincts (complicated alpha visions could be acquiring wealth, intelligence, physical strength, fame... etc.)

- Mothering instincts (such as worrying)

- Sexual Drive

- Protecting the herd (territorial)

- ETC.

 

3. Avoiding Death

- Fear (fear of death survives)

- Taste buds

- Shelter making instincts

- ETC.

 

I have an entire book devoted to these ideas, you can obviously delve into them with a lot more depth.

[too-open-minded]

Well I'm in the process of developing a few theories. One of them involving this stuff, you really wrote a book?

 

If you know much about emotions/instincts and the evolution/influence of them, I could really use your help Binyamin Tsadik.

[zapatos]

People who make decisions based on their emotions usually make poor decisions.

That sounds a little strong to me. I wonder if there is any data to back up this assertion.

 

I imagine emotions developed because they were what was best for us. While I don't doubt following our emotions can get us in trouble in some cases I would think they usually work pretty well.

 

We avoid eating food that disgusts us (such as rotten food). We avoid walking over the rickety bridge or playing with snakes out of fear. Panic caused many people to leave the World Trade Center when they were told to stay where they were by authorities. Embarrasment keeps people from doing stupid things every day.

[too-open-minded]

Emotions are what drives us to do everything. Without them, we probably wouldn't be motivated to do anything.

 

Although I think what bill was trying to say is that some people let their emotions get the best of them. Sometimes anger can cloud your judgement and make you act irrational.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

Well I'm in the process of developing a few theories. One of them involving this stuff, you really wrote a book?

 

If you know much about emotions/instincts and the evolution/influence of them, I could really use your help Binyamin Tsadik.

 

I sent you a PM with my email if you want to speak in person, otherwise I'd be happy to expand and think together on anything you would like.

 

I have a very interesting theory of where the origin of male and female came from, and with that, the origin of the alpha male instinct.

Here is an excerpt from my book.

 

 

2.5.1 The Origin of AlphaInstincts and Gender (Theory) * <a href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/binyamin/Desktop/Chapter%202%20excerpt.docx#AlphaMale">><

 

(Theoretical Stage)

 

Alpha instincts began with one of the first creaturesto have a head. The flatworm and the roundworm were a gigantic evolutionarystep. All organisms with heads evolved (in some way) from the worm. Heads leadto brains and brains lead to higher behaviour patterns (although behaviour andcentralised neural networks existed before the head). There are 3 reproductive types of worm. Thesimplest and the first type of reproduction is mitosis. These worms reproducethrough cell division. The second type is hermaphroditic. These worms reproduceby impregnating each other or themselves. The third and final type is thegendered worm that has both male and female genders. Thepoint that we are interested in is the point where genders divided from ahermaphroditic species to a gendered species.

 

The worm of interest was hermaphroditic. These worms would attack each otherand the winner would pass on its seed to the loser who would have to bearchildren. This physical battle forsuperiority is the first case of alpha instincts and the point where gendersdivided.

The strongest worm would do battle and damage and impregnate all the otherworms. This "strongest" worm was the alpha worm. (Granted that someof the other stronger worms could get the chance to impregnate worms until theydo battle with the alpha.) All of the weaker worms would combine their DNA withthe DNA of the alpha worm. This keeps the species strong.

The next generation would have a new alpha. This new alpha could either pass onthe alpha chromosome it got from its "father" or the weak chromosomeit got from its "mother". The result would be either an alpha genecombined with a weak gene or two weak genes in combination.

 

Two weak genes in combination would effectivelyproduce a female because the weak-weak worms could not win, at least, 50% oftheir battles and would ultimately end up bearing children (as a female does).The alpha-weak worms would compete again to pass on their seed.

Eventually the weak-weak worms would lose their male organs from non-use(successful childbirth does not depend on the functionality of the female'smale organ) and the alpha gene would evolve to lose its female organs due tonon-use (because the alpha worm would never be impregnated and would not berequired to possess properly working female organs to procreate [geneticallysurvive]).

 

Thealpha male instinct would not be required, for procreation, in females andtherefore is only found in the ‘Y’ chromosome. (The instinct may have modified itself and be present as the alphafemale instinct, but this is speculation.

 

Thisdivision in gender is what makes up our alpha instincts today. Males in everyspecies will compete to pass on their seed. (It is interesting to notice howthe male dogs will mount each other to display superiority).

 

Itis also true that before intercourse all animals instinctually re-enact thisoriginal struggle of male vs. female. Fortunately [in human cases] it does not extend as far as rape (in mostcases) but the battle is still present (in the form of a mating ritual) in allanimals today.

 

 

[Ringer]

I sent you a PM with my email if you want to speak in person, otherwise I'd be happy to expand and think together on anything you would like.

 

I have a very interesting theory of where the origin of male and female came from, and with that, the origin of the alpha male instinct.

Here is an excerpt from my book.

 

 

2.5.1 The Origin of AlphaInstincts and Gender (Theory) * <a href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/binyamin/Desktop/Chapter%202%20excerpt.docx#AlphaMale">><

 

(Theoretical Stage)

 

Alpha instincts began with one of the first creaturesto have a head. The flatworm and the roundworm were a gigantic evolutionarystep. All organisms with heads evolved (in some way) from the worm. Heads leadto brains and brains lead to higher behaviour patterns (although behaviour andcentralised neural networks existed before the head). There are 3 reproductive types of worm. Thesimplest and the first type of reproduction is mitosis. These worms reproducethrough cell division. The second type is hermaphroditic. These worms reproduceby impregnating each other or themselves. The third and final type is thegendered worm that has both male and female genders. Thepoint that we are interested in is the point where genders divided from ahermaphroditic species to a gendered species.

 

The worm of interest was hermaphroditic. These worms would attack each otherand the winner would pass on its seed to the loser who would have to bearchildren. This physical battle forsuperiority is the first case of alpha instincts and the point where gendersdivided.

The strongest worm would do battle and damage and impregnate all the otherworms. This "strongest" worm was the alpha worm. (Granted that someof the other stronger worms could get the chance to impregnate worms until theydo battle with the alpha.) All of the weaker worms would combine their DNA withthe DNA of the alpha worm. This keeps the species strong.

The next generation would have a new alpha. This new alpha could either pass onthe alpha chromosome it got from its "father" or the weak chromosomeit got from its "mother". The result would be either an alpha genecombined with a weak gene or two weak genes in combination.

 

Two weak genes in combination would effectivelyproduce a female because the weak-weak worms could not win, at least, 50% oftheir battles and would ultimately end up bearing children (as a female does).The alpha-weak worms would compete again to pass on their seed.

Eventually the weak-weak worms would lose their male organs from non-use(successful childbirth does not depend on the functionality of the female'smale organ) and the alpha gene would evolve to lose its female organs due tonon-use (because the alpha worm would never be impregnated and would not berequired to possess properly working female organs to procreate [geneticallysurvive]).

 

Thealpha male instinct would not be required, for procreation, in females andtherefore is only found in the 'Y' chromosome. (The instinct may have modified itself and be present as the alphafemale instinct, but this is speculation.

 

Thisdivision in gender is what makes up our alpha instincts today. Males in everyspecies will compete to pass on their seed. (It is interesting to notice howthe male dogs will mount each other to display superiority).

 

Itis also true that before intercourse all animals instinctually re-enact thisoriginal struggle of male vs. female. Fortunately [in human cases] it does not extend as far as rape (in mostcases) but the battle is still present (in the form of a mating ritual) in allanimals today.

 

 

 

Any evidence for this seemingly Larmarckian evolution or why the female would not develop a defense mechanism to the alpha?

Edited July 17, 2012 by Ringer

[Binyamin Tsadik]

Any evidence for this seemingly Larmarckian evolution or why the female would not develop a defense mechanism to the alpha?

 

First of all, it is not Lamarckian inheritance.

Every single organism has this behavior genetically configured into its brain. The fact that the battle occurs means that both parties have the desire for the battle to occur. The fact that one of them wins, means that one of them dominated the other physically. This dominating party is the one who will pass on his genetics to the next generation.

 

After the female developed into actually being a female, of course she would have developed some change in mechanism as an outer layer to the internal behavior pattern (because she would no longer require the desire to dominate in order to survive). She would have developed some desire for the Alpha male; and herself be drawn to be dominated in some way. A very interesting place this can be seen is in the tropical bird of paradise, where the females have the ability to fly away from the males. The females find males and observe their "dance". If the "dance" demonstrates a dominant male, then they will couple with them.

 

This can also be seen in human society where females have a choice in who to partner with. They try to find a dominating male. Only, in our societies, females have a different idea of what domination is.

 

Some view alpha as financial, others as intelligence, others as physical size. The female "defense" can be seen in old videos where Elvis would touch a female fan and have her feint on stage. This desire for the alpha is the defense mechanism.

If there were any other type of defense mechanism, then the female would never have been impregnated and she would never have passed on this mechanism to a future generation. Only a mechanism that promoted the coupling would be acceptable.

But of course, in the more primal female brain, she still has the desire to sexually dominate. This also comes out as Social domination.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Binyamin Tsadik

[Ringer]

So is that a no on actual evidence?

First of all, it is not Lamarckian inheritance.

Every single organism has this behavior genetically configured into its brain. The fact that the battle occurs means that both parties have the desire for the battle to occur. The fact that one of them wins, means that one of them dominated the other physically. This dominating party is the one who will pass on his genetics to the next generation.

 

So losing sexual organs through disuse is not Lamarckian?

 

The problem with this explanation is both of these parties have their genes passed on and both of the sets have the instinct for dominance. Since both parties have the traits for aggression and dominance there is no explanation as to why the other party became submissive.

 

After the female developed into actually being a female, of course she would have developed some change in mechanism as an outer layer to the internal behavior pattern (because she would no longer require the desire to dominate in order to survive). She would have developed some desire for the Alpha male; and herself be drawn to be dominated in some way. A very interesting place this can be seen is in the tropical bird of paradise, where the females have the ability to fly away from the males. The females find males and observe their "dance". If the "dance" demonstrates a dominant male, then they will couple with them.

 

I'm really not sure how this explains anything having to do with becoming female, why these traits would develop, why the desire would develop, or the idea that females are drawn to be dominated.

 

This can also be seen in human society where females have a choice in who to partner with. They try to find a dominating male. Only, in our societies, females have a different idea of what domination is.

 

Isn't this just a circular argument though? A female wants a dominant partner, but a dominant partner is whatever the female wants.

 

Some view alpha as financial, others as intelligence, others as physical size. The female "defense" can be seen in old videos where Elvis would touch a female fan and have her feint on stage. This desire for the alpha is the defense mechanism.

If there were any other type of defense mechanism, then the female would never have been impregnated and she would never have passed on this mechanism to a future generation. Only a mechanism that promoted the coupling would be acceptable.

But of course, in the more primal female brain, she still has the desire to sexually dominate. This also comes out as Social domination.

 

Plenty of animals reproduce fine through what would pretty much be considered rape as well as many other forms of sexual selection. Can you also cite any evidence showing that the 'primal female brain', whatever that may be, has the desire to sexually dominate or that women in general want to be dominated?

[Binyamin Tsadik]

 

So losing sexual organs through disuse is not Lamarckian?

 

It is if it happens in one lifetime, but not over generations.

 

If an organ is never used in a female, then females that had mutations in that organ would still pass on their genes. And if the other organ is never used in the male (remember in this stage of evolution there is only ever one male per generation) then their female organs could undergo mutation and not affect the health of the species.

 

The problem with this explanation is both of these parties have their genes passed on and both of the sets have the instinct for dominance. Since both parties have the traits for aggression and dominance there is no explanation as to why the other party became submissive.

 

Put it this way, the XY party would have an internal behavior to fight for dominance, the XX party would not need this behavior, quite the opposite, the one that had more fight in them would have less of a chance to get impregnated. So over many generations the XX would tend towards submissive behavior.

 

Isn't this just a circular argument though? A female wants a dominant partner, but a dominant partner is whatever the female wants.

 

This statement wasn't even an argument. Evolution dictated that females who cling to an alpha male survive and thus this behavior is promoted. In human society, rape has been made illegal and females can chose their partners. So what I was stating (this is not a theory, this is social science) is that females now dictate what the alpha male is. In nature it was always the male who dictated dominance but now it is the female.

 

Plenty of animals reproduce fine through what would pretty much be considered rape as well as many other forms of sexual selection. Can you also cite any evidence showing that the 'primal female brain', whatever that may be, has the desire to sexually dominate or that women in general want to be dominated?

 

It is very difficult to eliminate genetic behavior, studies show, that primal behaviors are not lost but are recessive to newer ones.

So female domination has been molded to social domination and manipulation.

 

Studies show that females have less stress levels and elevated blood pressure when they are in a relationship. And even more so when their male counterpart is in the same room. Females have a comfort level associated with the presence of a male. Being dominated also means being secure and protected.

The opposite has been shown for males. Their stress levels have not shown any significant change whether or not they are in a relationship, and elevated stress levels occur when any female (not necessarily their partner) is present in the same room.

 

I could not find any proof of a more primal drive for dominance in females, however, in nature mating rituals reenact some form of struggle for dominance. The fact that there are females that enjoy dominatrix type relationships, however, shows that females are capable of enjoying and have some desire for domination.

 

In my opinion, the female attempt to dominate the male is to test him in order to determine if he is a dominant alpha or not. A female that does not try to dominate a male would never know if he can actually dominate her or not. But this is speculation.