Why is it so difficult to change your ideology?

[Viet Minh]

Why is it even if your political beliefs cause you nothing but misery its so hard to change them? How do you actually go about changing your beliefs, if such a thing is possible?

[ComradeMan]

Mydeology or yourdeology?

Well, ideology fundamentally means the way you see things, the word of your idea and seeing as these things are so personal perhaps that's why it's hard to change them- like a kind of psychological bad habit. Dialecticians and Anti-Dialecticians are a good example! :D

[Ele'ill]

Why is it even if your political beliefs cause you nothing but misery its so hard to change them? How do you actually go about changing your beliefs, if such a thing is possible?

I've held various core beliefs since I was about fifteen but have changed a bit as I learned. Changed isn't the right word though- being able to identify with how you feel on immediate issues that arise- that's more like it.

Research and hands on experience/engagement in the issues you feel are important. Listen to others but don't be afraid to voice your opposition.

[Le Libérer]

I think our political beliefs change the more we learn and grow. Not only through reading new ideas but putting them into practice. As leftists, we have the ability to think outside the box and explore radical thought. Its what separates us from conservative and liberals.

So I dont see it as a hard thing to change, but something that takes growth. And that takes time.

[Ocean Seal]

I think our political beliefs change the more we learn and grow. Not only through reading new ideas but putting them into practice. As leftists, we have the ability to think outside the box and explore radical thought. Its what separates us from conservative and liberals.

So I dont see it as a hard thing to change, but something that takes growth. And that takes time.
I agree with this notion, and further I would state that we grow with information. Considering information is placed before us every day we tend to change our ideologies a bit every day. Certainly, I don't think that if we were asked a very long list of ideological questions one day we would have the same result as the next if we couldn't lie on the ideology test.

[Viet Minh]

Its not so much about the left and right, I think in most cases it comes down to personality, people who believe in fairness and equality tend twoards the left, those who hate and want to opress tend towards the right. The exceptions to this are people who are brought up in exceptional circumstances, and brainwashed from an early age, and maybe only later 'see the light' and break free from their social conditioning.

[Rooster]

It's very hard to change your beliefs. You can't really just decide one day to believe something contrary to something else. If you were a Christian one day then you can't just decide that there's no longer any God and vice versa. Freud had a hard time with this as well, thinking that just telling people where their problems came from and such would cure them. Some people will hold onto some ideas until the day they die, no matter how much evidence or fact or logical argument is thrown at them, especially the sort of people who believe that they already hold the truth.

[Havet]

I didnt find it difficult. Provided I was exposed to the right facts and arguments

[ComradeMan]

I didnt find it difficult. Provided I was exposed to the right facts and arguments

Yeah but look what shit ideology you ended up with! :laugh:



LOLLL! Only joking!

[hatzel]

Half of me wants to think that our underlying ideology doesn't change when we change from liberal to socialist or anything like that...only the way we apply that idea to the real world, and solve the problems we notice around us :)

...on the other hand, that's probably a load of BS :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

The problemis that we are like rats in a maze. We do what works best. I'm Catholic, and American--that plan has made me rich fat and happy. Why should I change?

[Viet Minh]

Half of me wants to think that our underlying ideology doesn't change when we change from liberal to socialist or anything like that...only the way we apply that idea to the real world, and solve the problems we notice around us :)

...on the other hand, that's probably a load of BS :lol:

No thats a good point, I suppose we all have personal issues most important to us, but there are different answers to these issues. I don't believe anyone perfectly fits a particular category, like Martin lawrence I think said its stupid to say you support Republicans or Democrats, some issues you will agree with one, some the other, and most neither. Actually I added the last bit..

[hatzel]

No thats a good point, I suppose we all have personal issues most important to us, but there are different answers to these issues. I don't believe anyone perfectly fits a particular category

As far as I'm concerned, the only real use of named ideologies is to give other people a basic idea of what you think, but aren't really useful internally. Last time I checked, my ideology was Rabbi K-ism and nothing else :lol: Of course Rabbi K-ism can freely develop, particularly as I reads more, but it will always be Rabbi K-ism. Hence I get so frustrated at those who seem to just blindly follow some preset ideology in its entirety, who honestly define their opinions, to themselves as well as to others, by some specific ideology, and don't seem to allow much free variation around that core...

[ComradeMan]

As far as I'm concerned, the only real use of named ideologies is to give other people a basic idea of what you think, but aren't really useful internally. Last time I checked, my ideology was Rabbi K-ism and nothing else :lol: Of course Rabbi K-ism can freely develop, particularly as I reads more, but it will always be Rabbi K-ism. Hence I get so frustrated at those who seem to just blindly follow some preset ideology in its entirety, who honestly define their opinions, to themselves as well as to others, by some specific ideology, and don't seem to allow much free variation around that core...

Hence my comment- mydeology or yourdeology? ;)
:lol:

[Ele'ill]

The problemis that we are like rats in a maze. We do what works best. I'm Catholic, and American--that plan has made me rich fat and happy. Why should I change?


The change is coming regardless of your participation in it.

[Bud Struggle]

The change is coming regardless of your participation in it.

No. I don't think so. And it's not just the Bourgeoisie that screws them over (though they do.) It's the Proletarians doing it to themselves, over and over and over again.

[hatzel]

No. I don't think so. And it's not just the Bourgeoisie that screws them over (though they do.) It's the Proletarians doing it to themselves, over and over and over again.

No war but the inter-proletarian civil war :)

[Enragé]

my political beliefs dont cause me misery.

Having little control over my own life, and especially the total inability to find anything i can wholeheartedly do in this world to sustain myself (as in, a paid job in which i would actually think 'ah, im doing something good/productive/etc'), thats what makes me miserable some times. And the total disregard of human need, the pressures on our every lifes money-wise, state-wise, etc.

That said, i wouldnt call myself miserable. I could be better, sure, im stressed out alot cuz of all the things im forced into doing, but i manage to carve out moments of bliss from the madness of it all - moments with friends, my lover, with family, meeting new people, inspirational conversations or just funny ones, music, sex, all that shit.

My political beliefs consist in the amplification of those moments (and the insertion of what makes those moments great in our struggle), and in the end the victory of the social over the economic and the political. Sure, life will never be perfect. What frustrates me now it could be easily, logically, be a shitload better but its not happening.
Then, perhaps, you would say that my idea that it can be better makes me to some extent miserable. Well, i think i'd be more so if i thought this is all mankind had to offer.

[Dean]

Why is it even if your political beliefs cause you nothing but misery its so hard to change them? How do you actually go about changing your beliefs, if such a thing is possible?

Your political beliefs shouldn't have to cause misery. If you feel that they do, transform how you present them, or investigate how you relate to them and how you relate them to the world.

As to your title - I don't think its that hard to change your beliefs, as long as you are open-minded and honest. Its important, above all, to forget what people think about you - just make sure you are brutally honest to yourself. I had a lot of emotional problems as a kid, but when I learned how to analyze my own relationship to my ideas and others in a really honest way, I had a "180." Now - I feel like my life has only been getting better as I've continued to mature.

Relating this back to the op - me reading Erich Fromm's books played a major part in this transformation. One of his central themes, which ties back into the 'honesty' issue, is the rejection of idolatry in order to free oneself mentally. What is missing with a lot of materialist ideology is the analysis of the human mind - but I found it to be a critical aspect of my own ideological flourishing.

Learning about the thought processes that held me back also made me more sympathetic to those who have heartless beliefs. I think that's a fundamental step to take if you are to have any productive relationship to those around you.

[RGacky3]

The problemis that we are like rats in a maze. We do what works best. I'm Catholic, and American--that plan has made me rich fat and happy. Why should I change?


The difference is that I feel a sort of solidarity with humankind, so I base my ideology on what is best for everyone.

[Bud Struggle]

The difference is that I feel a sort of solidarity with humankind, so I base my ideology on what is best for everyone.Typical Liberal. :)

[RGacky3]

I guess, but empathy is normal, you and Rush Limbough are the wierd ones (I don't actually believe that you have the same selfish mindset as Rush).

[Che a chara]

Personally, i support truth, justice and equality and side with the oppressed and exploited.

We are a creation of our surroundings and conditions. We are brought up and even taught to be xenophobic in a very deceptive manner and unfortunately such hate and hostility manifests itself in society and people thrive and react on these divisive instincts. why should we allow this to continue and does humanity benefit from it ?

Be honest with yourself. Gain further knowledge. Try putting yourself in other people's shoes. think to yourself will the world be a better place if this or that happened. it's all cliches, but it's true.

[hatzel]

The difference is that I feel a sort of solidarity with humankind, so I base my ideology on what is best for everyone.

I'm pretty sure somebody who wrote some book some time on evolutionary game theory said that altruism and helping others and all that jazz only came along because it's good for us as an individual. Self-interest is the basis of all cooperation and charity, in the animal kingdom as well as humanity, because what's best for everybody is, believe it or not, best for us. And that's the important thing. The only difference between human and non-human animals is that we pretend our altruism isn't selfish at heart :)

Further to that (though not concerned with evolutionary game theory at all), I could go into some religious talk here about the 'hierarchy of charity' in Judaism. The teaching that an anonymous charitable gift is more noble than an onymous one, because if people know that you've given to charity, they might start to consider you a better person for it, and treat you accordingly, so, in fact, your giving to charity may have been selfish, may have been because you wanted respect from your peers. Even anonymously donating, though, makes us feel better about ourselves, convinces us that we are good, altruistic, kind-hearted people, and, as such, is also in our self-interest to some extent...

This also means: Bud! Help others! What's good for them is good for you! :lol:

[RGacky3]

Self-interest is the basis of all cooperation and charity, in the animal kingdom as well as humanity, because what's best for everybody is, believe it or not, best for us. And that's the important thing. The only difference between human and non-human animals is that we pretend our altruism isn't selfish at heart :)


Ok, well then I'm more evolved than right wingers, whatever, the point is the difference is that right wingers (at least a special breed of them), have a lack of empathy and a strange relationship to power.

[PhoenixAsh]

The problemis that we are like rats in a maze. We do what works best. I'm Catholic, and American--that plan has made me rich fat and happy. Why should I change?

because fat is ultimately unhealthy....and makes you run a lot less fast when the revolution comes. ;-)

[hatzel]

Ok, well then I'm more evolved than right wingers, whatever, the point is the difference is that right wingers (at least a special breed of them), have a lack of empathy and a strange relationship to power.

I'm sure many of those same right-wingers, looking at left-wingers preaching about the working class seizing power, might think that they too are driven by the same craving for power. And I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that all those revolutionaries who run around condemning the bourgeoisie to death are hardly acting through empathy towards them...I dunno...:) We're all the same, really. Selfish bastards :laugh:

[RGacky3]

Do you want me to explain it? I made a pretty long thread about it before.

[Viet Minh]

Your political beliefs shouldn't have to cause misery. If you feel that they do, transform how you present them, or investigate how you relate to them and how you relate them to the world.

As to your title - I don't think its that hard to change your beliefs, as long as you are open-minded and honest. Its important, above all, to forget what people think about you - just make sure you are brutally honest to yourself. I had a lot of emotional problems as a kid, but when I learned how to analyze my own relationship to my ideas and others in a really honest way, I had a "180." Now - I feel like my life has only been getting better as I've continued to mature.

I suppose its because its so intertwined with my sense of identity, rather than an abstract concept. I really try hard to change my beliefs, life would be so much easier and that whole frustration would be gone. But its not something I can escape from, its there wherever I go.


Relating this back to the op - me reading Erich Fromm's books played a major part in this transformation. One of his central themes, which ties back into the 'honesty' issue, is the rejection of idolatry in order to free oneself mentally. What is missing with a lot of materialist ideology is the analysis of the human mind - but I found it to be a critical aspect of my own ideological flourishing.

Learning about the thought processes that held me back also made me more sympathetic to those who have heartless beliefs. I think that's a fundamental step to take if you are to have any productive relationship to those around you.

I'm genuinely not interested in relationships, I prefer my own company and find friends to be a mere nuisance, well at least most of the 'friends' I've had so far.. The internet is a useful tool for expanding the mind intellectually to some degree, but its too addictive, and stops me actually engaging in reality when I should. Also I'm as much an outsider on teh internet asI am irl, this is probably the longest I've gone without being b& from anywhere! :D Which tbh I fully expected 5 mins after my intro post. :laugh:


Personally, i support truth, justice and equality and side with the oppressed and exploited.

We are a creation of our surroundings and conditions. We are brought up and even taught to be xenophobic in a very deceptive manner and unfortunately such hate and hostility manifests itself in society and people thrive and react on these divisive instincts. why should we allow this to continue and does humanity benefit from it ?

Be honest with yourself. Gain further knowledge. Try putting yourself in other people's shoes. think to yourself will the world be a better place if this or that happened. it's all cliches, but it's true.

Thats exactly the problem, the very people I support stab me in the back as I try my hardest to defend them. I long ago gave up any ideas of nationality, being half English in Scotland growing up with constant threats, bullying, demeaning, going to a Catholic school as a Protestant. North of the border I'm an English bastard/ sassenach, south of the border I'm a jock, so no I don't subscribe to any ideas of nationality or ethnicity. I actually put mixed race on my census, half scottish half english! :D
Talking of empathy yeah I have that, too much of that really, it would be a relief not to care for once, but it seems thats not an option unfortunately. I'm constantly dragged back into this losing battle, fighting on both fronts, like banging my head against a brick wall. I'm not even depressed believe it or not :blink: just being honest about the situation as I see it.

[hatzel]

Do you want me to explain it? I made a pretty long thread about it before.

Nah, you a'ight :)

But I really don't buy into all this 'the left are inherently superior to the right' or whatever. But then I don't really buy into a lot of the rhetoric that many leftists like to spew, so that shouldn't come as much of a surprise...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting-data/5347/79845Non-conformist.jpg

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm pretty sure somebody who wrote some book some time on evolutionary game theory said that altruism and helping others and all that jazz only came along because it's good for us as an individual. Self-interest is the basis of all cooperation and charity, in the animal kingdom as well as humanity, because what's best for everybody is, believe it or not, best for us. And that's the important thing. The only difference between human and non-human animals is that we pretend our altruism isn't selfish at heart :)

Useless word games. What matters is it happens. You can try to spin taking a bullet for someone as self-interest all you want. It's not. It's just a useless word game.
Think of it; if the theory says every single thing you could ever do is motivated by self-interest, then the theory is irrelevant. Who cares? If everything is self-interest then we just have to break it down to self-interest for the self, and self-interest for other people.
It's just a bunch of gobbledygook. Fuck Dawkins :lol: (im assuming that's who said this. Sounds like the Selfish Gene or whatever. D is cool in his explanations of evolution, but this is just useless word games.)



Further to that (though not concerned with evolutionary game theory at all), I could go into some religious talk here about the 'hierarchy of charity' in Judaism. The teaching that an anonymous charitable gift is more noble than an onymous one, because if people know that you've given to charity, they might start to consider you a better person for it, and treat you accordingly, so, in fact, your giving to charity may have been selfish, may have been because you wanted respect from your peers. Even anonymously donating, though, makes us feel better about ourselves, convinces us that we are good, altruistic, kind-hearted people, and, as such, is also in our self-interest to some extent...

So? Word games. What matters is you did it.
Do you see anyone talking about how selfish Extremem Home Makeover is because they make a profit by doing what they do?


This also means: Bud! Help others! What's good for them is good for you! :lol:

That's BS too. SOmetimes what is good for everyone else is bad for you. Deal with it. It probably means you're an asshole.

[RGacky3]

Nah, you a'ight :)

But I really don't buy into all this 'the left are inherently superior to the right' or whatever. But then I don't really buy into a lot of the rhetoric that many leftists like to spew, so that shouldn't come as much of a surprise...


I did'nt say that, I said a certain thread in the right has basically a total lack of empathy and are essencially mild sociopaths, and that leftists in general tend to have more empathy.

Political ideolies are influenced by personality.

I'm not saying all, nor am I saying its a fast rule.

[#FF0000]

After awhile if people don't challenge themselves, their politics become part of their identity.

So, yeah. That is why.

[Tomhet]

I guess you'd call me a 'Marxist-Leninist' but I see no actual benefit to the working class by identifying personally with historical movements, I.E Who cares how Trotsky and Stalin got along? how does that help the working class of the 21st century???
I believe in Leftist ideals and solutions..

[hatzel]

Useless word games.

None of this is word games. Game theory isn't a word game. It's a number game. Maths and shit :lol: And evolutionary game theory...that's just biological maths or something like that...I'm hardly a mathematician, and I don't much care for all the numbers behind, say, the Nash bargaining game, but somebody, somewhere, came up with it all, and somebody (Skyrms, not Dawkins), somewhere (Evolution of the social contract, not the Selfish gene), started blabbering on about sharing out chocolate cake so that we'd all get a piece before it spoils. That's all I know! Ask a mathematician for the D-tales :)


Do you see anyone talking about how selfish Extremem Home Makeover is because they make a profit by doing what they do?
Yeah, me! :laugh: Naaaaah, I'm not calling them selfish (because my earlier use of the word 'selfish' was intentionally inflammatory), as selfishness is generally considered to be a pretty negative character trait. As such, it doesn't fit in. Plenty of writers have used evolutionary game theory to explain the development of altruism and empathy all that stuff in our species, basically coming down to evolutionary game theory. That it is in the individual's best interest to come to a mutually-agreeable conclusion with his peers, and, as such, we are still somehow predisposed to that. It makes sense to me...if a group of animals come across a kill, of course it's generally better, even for the individual, to amicably share it, rather than to fight over it, 'winner takes all'. No point getting killed to keep hunger at bay, you know...because even the biggest, strongest animal in the pack will eventually find himself beaten, the minute the rest decide to team up to take him down! :laugh:

To me, this seems like a logical suggestion, and of course those evolutionary game theorists have their their maths and all that, they might be better suited to explaining it, but the basic suggestion, as best I understand it, is that altruism as a concept finds its synthesis in self-interest. The fact that it's now more often the result of social 'indoctrination' (I couldn't think of a neutral word for that :confused:) is of little interest.

Of course socialists should also best agree that cooperation, rather than competition, is in the individual's best long-term interest. That is to say, socialism is ultimately beneficial even for the bourgeoisie, who may in capitalism eventually find themselves 'beaten' in the competition, bankrupt, destitute...not to mention the various other problems that we may associate with the competitive society.

I promise I'm not falling back on social Darwinism or anything like that, but last time I heard, that whole thing about biological evolution happening through competition...bullshit. Those great evolutionary leaps forward, as we now know, were achieved in times of minimal competition. And, as we also know from reading a bit of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid...it all comes down to basically the same thing. Game theory, Darwinian evolution (as we now understand it), Kropotkin's shizzle: that cooperation is a much safer bet than competition, and for good reason :) Because yes, what's good for us as a whole is best for us as an individual in the long run. Individual incidents aren't really the issue here, like throwing yourself in front of a bullet, but the overarching systems over the course of generations, that everybody thrives in the absence of competition, even those 'top dogs' who we consider to be the 'winners' in a competitive environment. Like Bud :lol:

And @Gacky: I know you didn't say that, but I thought I'd just jump in at the slightest provocation and proclaim from the hilltops that there are some leftists that I don't consider particularly nice people, if nice means empathetic and the like, because I'm in a dissing mood today :sneaky:

[Revolution starts with U]

None of this is word games
Calling altruism self-interest most certainly is merely a word game.
Game theory isn't a word game. It's a number game. Maths and shit :lol: And evolutionary game theory...that's just biological maths or something like that...I'm hardly a mathematician, and I don't much care for all the numbers behind, say, the Nash bargaining game, but somebody, somewhere, came up with it all, and somebody (Skyrms, not Dawkins), somewhere (Evolution of the social contract, not the Selfish gene), started blabbering on about sharing out chocolate cake so that we'd all get a piece before it spoils. That's all I know! Ask a mathematician for the D-tales :)
That's fine, I never said they were.
Of course most action stems from self-interest. Who would contest that? But saying people practice altruism, or altruism developed, for selfish reasons is irrelevant. It's a word game to try to diminish altruism all together.
If I help you carry in your groceries because I just did, or because it makes me feel like you think I'm a better person (or whatever)... what does it matter? Greed is still greed, altruism is still altruism.




To me, this seems like a logical suggestion, and of course those evolutionary game theorists have their their maths and all that, they might be better suited to explaining it, but the basic suggestion, as best I understand it, is that altruism as a concept finds its synthesis in self-interest. The fact that it's now more often the result of social 'indoctrination' (I couldn't think of a neutral word for that :confused:) is of little interest.

The fact that it is self-interest based is of little interest as well. That has been my point. If all action is self-interest it doesn't change the debate one iota between greed and altruism, there are still varying scales of destructiveness.



I promise I'm not falling back on social Darwinism or anything like that, but last time I heard, that whole thing about biological evolution happening through competition...bullshit. Those great evolutionary leaps forward, as we now know, were achieved in times of minimal competition.
And, as we also know from reading a bit of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid...it all comes down to basically the same thing. Game theory, Darwinian evolution (as we now understand it), Kropotkin's shizzle: that cooperation is a much safer bet than competition, and for good reason :) Because yes, what's good for us as a whole is best for us as an individual in the long run. Individual incidents aren't really the issue here, like throwing yourself in front of a bullet, but the overarching systems over the course of generations, that everybody thrives in the absence of competition, even those 'top dogs' who we consider to be the 'winners' in a competitive environment. Like Bud :lol:

It's all a complication of language, too open to interpretation. When Darwin said "fit" he meant just that; it fits with the environment. Not being the biggest jock on the block. When he says competition he means there is a limitation of available resources, and things have to search for and utilize resource, extending on earlier Malthusian arguments.
Although Darwins arguments had to be modified when the world began taking Mendel's research seriously, and we eventually found DNA the basic principles remain the same (at the very least for micro evolution. I think it still generally holds for macro, but I've been reading about this biologist who theorizes that many major genetic changes come about through symbiosis with various bacteria. I could see there being a lot of merit to that).

And @Gacky: I know you didn't say that, but I thought I'd just jump in at the slightest provocation and proclaim from the hilltops that there are some leftists that I don't consider particularly nice people, if nice means empathetic and the like, because I'm in a dissing mood today :sneaky:
On my dark days my political views become "people are utter shit, all of them. And that is exactly why none of them should be allowed to weild power." :lol:

[hatzel]

But saying people practice altruism, or altruism developed, for selfish reasons is irrelevant. It's a word game to try to diminish altruism all together.

I'd never try to diminish altruism. Who's to say that I'm not trying to elevate self-interest to the same level as altruism, rather than bring altruism down to the level of self-interest? Or, perhaps, egoism, rather than self-interest. Break down barriers! Challenge moral norms! For it is 'around the inventors of new values, [that] the world revolve[s]', as Nietzsche once said :lol:


The fact that it is self-interest based is of little interest as well. That has been my point. If all action is self-interest it doesn't change the debate one iota between greed and altruismI thought this was also my point, to some extent. The original claim was that Bud is consumed with self-interest, whilst Gacky has empathy, solidarity with humanity etc. My suggestion was that Bud's self-interest doesn't make him any less suited to communism than Gacky, you, me, ComradeMan, Mari3L etc. Because if the six of us came together over a treacle tart (I should mention I bake a mighty fine treacle tart :lol:) and decided to share it somehow, it's still in Bud's self-interest to demand 1/6, like everybody else, rather than trying to claim it all. The suggestion being that being driven by self-interest makes him any less suited to being a communist is an illusion. But then self-interest and greed aren't quite synonymous, and is a whole other question...


It's all a complication of language, too open to interpretation.Flagrant post-structuralism! :laugh:


When Darwin said "fit" he meant just that; it fits with the environment. Not being the biggest jock on the block. When he says competition he means there is a limitation of available resources, and things have to search for and utilize resource, extending on earlier Malthusian arguments.Indeed, but I'm talking about some study (specific, I know :rolleyes:) they released a little while back, showing that the major evolutionary develops didn't happen when there was a great deal of competition for scarce resources (whatever they may be), but when resources were in great abundance, so competition wasn't necessary. The former being the 'orthodox' Darwinian understanding, with all that 'survival of the fittest' stuff, where the giraffes with the longer necks out-competed those with the shorter necks in a time of great competition for leaves.

EDIT: just realised how horrendously off-topic this all is! :o

[Revolution starts with U]

I'd never try to diminish altruism. Who's to say that I'm not trying to elevate self-interest to the same level as altruism, rather than bring altruism down to the level of self-interest?
I didn't mean to accuse you of doing it just for citing it :lol:
Perhaps that was a tad knee-jerk anti rightism on my part


Or, perhaps, egoism, rather than self-interest. Break down barriers! Challenge moral norms! For it is 'around the inventors of new values, [that] the world revolve[s]', as Nietzsche once said :lol:

:tt1:



Indeed, but I'm talking about some study (specific, I know :rolleyes:) they released a little while back, showing that the major evolutionary develops didn't happen when there was a great deal of competition for scarce resources (whatever they may be), but when resources were in great abundance, so competition wasn't necessary. The former being the 'orthodox' Darwinian understanding, with all that 'survival of the fittest' stuff, where the giraffes with the longer necks out-competed those with the shorter necks in a time of great competition for leaves.

But that's not an orthodox darwinian stance at all. There was nothing directly competitive about a long neck helping you get more food. He wasn't saying competition in the sense of "I take from you." But more in the sense that there is limited resource and those traits that help us get more food (but not even that, it all really breaks down to having more children) will eventually be the most seen in the population.
the giraffe thing is usually the analogy of linnean evolution :lol:
Darwin wouldn't have said, as far as I know, that great evolutionary jumps would happen in times of scanter resource, rather than abundance. Rather that populations will resemble most the ancestor that has the most current descendants.

[hatzel]

the giraffe thing is usually the analogy of linnean evolution :lol:

Isn't Linnean the 'the giraffe stretched his neck so often that it just magically got longer', whilst the (classic?) Darwinian approach is 'the long-necked giraffes were more successful than the short-necked giraffes etc.'? The assumption being that there are insufficient leaves, so the long-neckers 'trump' the short-neckers, suggesting that it's competition that makes the difference. Doesn't matter to me, though...giraffes and all that shit were just made as they are now like six thousand years ago, bro, that's what I heard, and what I hear's the truth! :)

[Revolution starts with U]

Isn't Linnean the 'the giraffe stretched his neck so often that it just magically got longer',
Yes :lol: It was called aquired characteristics, and there is scant evidence that it happens ever anywhere (except that biologist i was talking about earlier.. good stuff. I'll try to get the name).
whilst the (classic?) Darwinian approach is 'the long-necked giraffes were more successful than the short-necked giraffes etc.'? The assumption being that there are insufficient leaves, so the long-neckers 'trump' the short-neckers, suggesting that it's competition that makes the difference. Doesn't matter to me, though...giraffes and all that shit were just made as they are now like six thousand years ago, bro, that's what I heard, and what I hear's the truth! :)
The idea of the competition over resource comes from Malthus, who deduced there was a natural equilibrium in a given biosphere; or, population cannot long outlast available resource.
It's more used as a model for a given ecological community, than as an application of evolutionary theory.
Darwin would say long necked giraffes had more access to food than short necked, which allows them to have more children, therefore the population of giraffes now resembles long necks, rather than short.
There's also sexual/cultural selection, and genetic drift tho (and symbiotic biogenesis maybe :lol:). Natural selection is just the most common form of population change.

[hatzel]

Darwin would say long necked giraffes had more access to food than short necked, which allows them to have more children, therefore the population of giraffes now resembles long necks, rather than short.

But but but but but that still suggests that there's all competition and stuff going on, not enough leaves to fill everybody's belly...:crying:

Back on topic: yeah, I think #FF0000's one-line explanation was the best so far. Some people actually define themselves by their ideology, as if its something integral to their person, so changing their ideology is almost like trying to claim they don't have blue eyes any more, but brown :lol:

[inyourhouse]

I think this summarizes my view:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110308.gif