[URIIADDIVME]

Okay- first, i hate emoticons, despise the concept of the intellectual age of emoticons approaching.
Next- I have almost no social skills. So forget about it, I barely get by.
So now then, this is what I do, I make things up, like this-
Congregation for competitive sexual selection evolved in humans into congregation as competitive sexual selection. Whereupon, all traits conducive to congregation (i.e. socialization enculturation) become subject to the evolutionary influence of sexual selection; re: Darwin.
To keep it short, this means, the process of socialization is competitive. The primary individuals involved with said process generally remain unconcious of the competitive unature of the process.
Next, to finish tearing up Sigmund,
Dependence is a drive with bimodal expression; the primary expression by the neonate elicits the secondary expression from the parent/caregiver.
This replaces some other ideas of other's.
Sex;
Sex is a style of reproduction. Sex is a drive with certain parts.
Reproduction, mate selection (competitive sexual selection), eros/libidinism and dependence.
Dependence as a drive, although subservient to reproductive style in a similar sense to eros, is probably more evolutionarily influential than competitive selection.
Dependence is the essence of mammalian evolution.
The primary period of infantile -juvenile dependence cannot exceed the capacity of the secondary parental response. This creates a dynamic which acts to both extend and restrict the duration of the period of primary dependence.
So- i think about a lot of other things but nobody can stand to listen. If you ask me why is that, i'm likely to not tell you the answer even if i know it, which i do.

[Rhapsody]

WELCOME to PC -

good word associatoion but still crap

[JustAPixie]

You put forth a rather confusing but interesting argument, but I cannot agree. Although being human and all our actions look good and obvious on theoretical paper, it lacks the essence of humanity that drives us to be what we are or are not. Life is more complicated than the ego's of frued or the selections of Darwin. Mordern medicine has beat frued and the average human intelligence has beat sigmund.

As to the whole dependence debate... don't most of us strive for independence and freedom? Isn't that the hart of every war, of every revolution and even every marital fight?

[Rapunzel]

Urriiadivme,

How do you say your name and what does it mean? Welcome to PC. Your post is interesting. Mind if I take a crack at translating it into plain English?

Social skills are part of natural selection, as if one lacks social skills one will not be as likely to have the opportunity to reproduce. Dependence is likewise necessary for survival up until a point, where it may exceed the parents' ability to provide and they may stop.

One might add that dependence could also become a hindrance to social skills and thus may decrease one's opportunity to pass along one's genes.

May I ask if you are here to work on issues with social skills and/or dependence? If you are, this is a good place. You will get better results if you write such that most of us can understand what you are saying though. Part of social skills involves making the effort to adapt to the way that a group does things, rather than entering a group and either being critical of them right off the bat or isolating yourself with a display of intellectualism or anything else that makes you stand out and/or excludes members of the group who are not accustomed to your way of communicating and interacting.

Rapunzel

[JustAPixie]

I think the name means you are too ADD for me. I don't know if add refers to the disorder or something else...

[Bethsway]

Tanyagrave I think you are correct on the name...and welcome to the PC forum...UR...Hope you find what you are looking for here...There are alot of caring people at PC and if you want or need support we will be more than willing to give it...despite not being able to understand you...lol...Well, not entirely anyhow...!

[FaithisAlive]

Sounds like Mr Spock has been here to me....I am 2 ADD 4 this...

huh?

[URIIADDIVME]

Where'd it go?

[URIIADDIVME]

The internet is unnatural. Lucretius (c. 75 BC) Citing Democritus, stated, "Nature never reduces anything to nothing." This does not apply to the internet.
Lucretius also gave a significant amount of attention to arguing the existence of air. I have great sympathy for his efforts even though I can only manage him in translation.

So, try again, as the psuedo-voce said.

The main point has been overlooked.

Dependence as a bimodal drive has not only implications for the general case of species evolution but also the special case of individual development.

Socialization as a means of competitive sexual selection does as well but then there are specific conditions of each species to consider.

(Look, I only get an hour online and it's running out.)

So for a couple examples. Consider the attachment that some humans have been known to make with juvenile chimpanzee's, there's dependence. Then what happens when the chimp reaches sexual maturity?
There's the rub. Chimp (pan) competitive mate selection differs markedly from human (h. sap). That's where the trouble comes from.
Although all (?) primates exhibit socialization as a component of mate selection, humans have advanced the behavior to a notable degree.
If all traits conducive to congregation entails socialization/enculturation then what traits are these?
All traits of communication, impulses towards socialization, etc. Go ahead, write your own list, but do it with Darwin. Do it for Darwin!
Dependence as a style of reproduction must of course occupy a special position in evolution.
So, yesterdays' news (to me).
Announcement of an archeological find, the oldest child, a juvenile proto-human skeleton some 3 million yrs. old. The individual's skull still developing indicates prehuman ancestry and is suggestive of dependence. Does this indicate the ancient quality of dependence as a drive? Nope. Dependence can be observed in some fish (bettas), reptiles (gator), dinosaur, avian, and yes, mammals.
The infant must command the parental response. Because it is an absolute mortal issue aberant ideation of mortality can be regarded as resulting from the intrusion of infantile, primary dependence, into the adult sexualized psyche. This only says what intrudes, it does not say why. So name a couple of aberrant ideations of mortality. As opposed to appropriate ideation of mortality.
times up-bye until next time
bah on emoticons - this means you, -smiley

[JustAPixie]

Good luck in life UR!!!

[pebblypoo]

Duuuuuuuuude............all of this stressing is going to give you worry lines. Try a little mindless tv, like I do. Ignorance is bliss, babe.

I think I am starting to get what you are saying.

Basically, in a society, we (society)creates the very dependance that leads to ideation of mortality.

Which, in a way, is true. But as you also say, humans as a species ARE dependant in nature, it is the way we are structured. We are made to associate in groups, to have company, to fall in love - from an evolutionary standpoint all of these things are now inherent in humans. When you take away one of these things we are dependant on, the survivalist in us has less to strive for, therefore making us unhappy.

If this is what you meant, then I get where you are coming from.

[JustAPixie]

I'm with you pebblypoo! This post can give you a migraine if you're not careful!

[URIIADDIVME]

No, you're overlooking the basic statement that dependence is a drive.
Behavioral Dependence is not a condition (as opposed to physical dependence,) it is a drive.
Dependence is a style of reproduction.
Some creatures, species do not appear to express dependence, such as some sea turtles who famously lay their eggs in the sand and then crawl-swim away.
Dependence as a drive requires participation by the neonate and by the caregiver (parent). As such i call it a bimodal expression.
The primary, existential expression by the neonate elicits the secondary (care) expression from the parent.
That is the "plan" according to evolution. The evolutionary effect, as I stated, a dynamic exists which is, the duration of the primary dependence state in the juvenile cannot exceed the capacity of the secondary response from the parent.
This acts to both extend and/or restrict the primary period.
This action is similar to Darwins observation about the role of mate selection, competitive sexual selection.
Primary dependence is incongruent with the conditions of the matured, sexualized psyche. Emergence of the primary impulse into the sexualized (socialized) psyche can be an intractable condition, as primary dependence must command the parental response.
I therefore hypothosize that obssesive maladaptive ideation of mortality could result from such an intrusion. This does not say why such an intrusion would occur, it only describes some conditions that would then present.
And again, don't forget that socialization is competition.
This brings up a bunch of other issues, such as, why are there pretty girls, which implies prettier?

Masculine superficial visual appraisal of apparent feminine attractiveness does not strongly influence feminine reproductive success. That is, in the general,population wide sense as opposed to the specific, individual sense.

So, pretty girls, why?
Diversity and disparity of feminine apparent attractiveness (and I don't mean fashion) induces regulation of masculine competition.
The overriding function of socialization/enculturation is regulation of competition.
To expand (yes please) on that-
For example, among some red tailed deer species the duration of a harum master is measured in weeks, after which he is dead from competitive combat.
Increased socialization, ritualization of competitive impulses has a regulating effect upon competition.
Essentialy, human society has evolved to the point where display of regulation of competition is competition.
So next, comes the issue of the enculturation or socialization, process as a competitive expression.
The primaries in this process are relatively unconcious of the competitive nature of the process.
This brings me to MARO- mutually assured reproductive opportunity and the evolutionary direction resulting from this change in competition.
Societal membership bestows MARO, in the general sense. However, membership acts as suggested by the pretty girl example, diversity and disparity of apparent competitive capacity induces or expresses regulation of competition.
I find that is the more difficult proposition to accept.
Membership is the competitive expression, not status.
Among most other primates, membership and status are competitive expressions.
Jeez whizz, and I wanted to talk about sex.

[darkeyes]

Just thought about this, there is an excellent forum at a site called, Behavior Online, the forum is called, Evolutionary Psychology. The host of that forum, there is James F. Brody.
Just thought I'd mention this, cause it may be of your interest, to be around others that hold many discussions of topics like this and more.
It's a very informative site as well.

[URIIADDIVME]

Trouble with evolutionary psychology is they left out behavior in their conjectures.

[darkeyes]

That forum as well as the other forums at that website discusses that too, in some of the postings.
I haven't been there awhile so I don't know, maybe there have been changes.
It was just a thought.
Lots of luck.

[URIIADDIVME]

Too bad or not two bad

I don't work from a script so typically when i do one of these, hashings, rehashing, trashing, something get shaken loose and a new idea pops up. Well it's worked again so to bad most won't follo the dialog. Can't put it out yet though, it's still burning in the oven, to paraphrase Henry Miller.

So, to focus on some part of the previous.

Dependence is a style of reproduction.
Does that need more example? Look up infancy.
Other genera besides mammalian demonstrate dependence. I've named some above.

Dependence as a style of reproduction requires behavioral support.
Consider the marsupials, nonplacental mammals. The infant is first born, if that is the correct term, and while basically still a fetus, must crawl across the mother's body to the pouch to complete maturation.
That is an innate behavior, that style of reproduction could not exist without it. So:
I regard the behavioral components of dependence style reproduction as a drive.
A drive with two components, i have termed it as bimodal dependence. The infantile/juvenile phase (primary) and the parental phase (secondary).
The duration of the primary phase is determined by the capacities of the secondary phase.
So, the extended maturational process, (by comparison with other primates) of humans require changes in the dependence responses. Or should i say, extending the maturational process required changes?
Why extend the duration of the maturational process?
Come on, are we supposedly big brained or small brained? Work these things out on your own time.
An then I rote....
Something about competitive sexual selection.
times up gentlemen
the libary it closin'
st. elvis is left the buildin

lol.something sure has gotten shaken loose...and i think it might be your brain......lol

[URIIADDIVME]

"Madam Butterfly lulled me to sleep-in a town without pity where the water was deep." B. Dylan.

It's a free country (was?), feel free to avoid me.

For now I'll dwell on some basics because maybe someone will view this who is unfamiliar with some of them.

Regarding evolution, a few comments.
There is an intense duality about evolution.
from Darwin "The individual is the agent of evolutionary change." or something similar. That is to say, the individual geneticly endowed with some trait which promotes either survival, reproduction or both, is the agent of evolutionary change.
But; the individual does not evolve.
The individual develops but, except in science fiction, the individual does not evolve. Each is born and dies with the same set of chromosomes.
Competition; there is competition for resources between species and within species.
Then there is competition for reproductive opportunity.
Competitive sexual selection does not occur in solitude. It occurs amid the social-cultural system of the particular species. The individual is not consulted; it means everything to the individual.
Different realms of logical reference are involved.
The general case of populations, species and evolution.
The special case of the individual.
Mixing these produces the logical fallacy of equivocation.
Mostly, the difficulty encountered in dealing with the concepts I tend to present is the general preference for addressing individual experience.
For example- Freud, so near but yet so far, so close but no cigar.
For instance, Freud identifies individual actors and responses in his Oedipal Complex theory.
But, the actions involved are motivated by the drives I have enumerated.
Dependence drive, competitive sexual selection, not by individual actors.
Individual experience produces individual development, starting with neonatal experience but these all occur within
an established range.
The questions of importance then, are what is the nature of the competitive processes and what increases or decreases their effectiveness.

[biplol]

lol, guys your replys make me lough so hard! as always, maniac episode mix with my good friends of PC!

[seeker1950]

So, what's your point in all this jargon...????
We are dependent...We are sexual and competitive...?
What's the point in all you writing; I'm wondering.
Sure, on one level we are organisms who mate and reproduce, thru whatever means. Dependent on our parents, then dependent on our mates...or potential mates. Something tells me you are espousing all of this because you have been burned and trying to make sense of it emotionally.
Speak in more human terms and perhaps we can respond more directly.
Or perhaps you just want to see how much you can stir us up in trying to respond.

uri! why would madame butterfly avoid you????? you know i love ya!!!!!Ramble on !!!!!!!!!