[URIIADDIVME]

Hi again everywho.
Yeah I do kick around places.
Now that there's been a chance to fester under there let's review, shall we?
This time i'll start with dependence again.
First, dependence is a style of reproduction.
Reproduction in mammals is of course, sexual so that makes dependence a sexual expression.
As I said previously, many times, do a name search,here, the styles of sexual expression are-
mate selection or competitive sexual selection (please refer to Darwin on this), libidinism or eroticism, reproduction and dependence.
It took me a long time to stop trying to make a distinction between dependence and sexual expression but eventualy i had to include dependence as a stylye of sexual expression.
But, just as there are distinct components of the other sexually motivated drive expressions, dependence is a distinct drive expression.
You should regard the evolutionary influence of dependence as more significant than competitive sexual selection.
it works like this-
the duration of the primary, neonatal/juevenile period of dependence cannot exceed the capacity of the parental, or secondary dependence, response.
The influence of such a behavioral system upon the repreoductive habits of a species is profound.
I refer to this behavioral dependence as bimodal. The primary expression, by the neonate, elicits the secondary expression, by the parent.
The success of the primary expression in commanding the parental response is an absolute issue of mortality for the neonate.
And, since I won't be able to get back here till after the turkey squaks, (I won't be having any.) Just remember, it takes a big step away from the egocentrist universe to appreciate the trends of evolution.
Thangs allott! Time ta growed hup!

[JustAPixie]

Welcome Back!!! I hope you enjoy thanksgiving without the turkey anyway....

[froggie2]

Its You! Well welcome back. and Happy Thanksgiving from me also. You Turkey!

[AlteredState01]

Way to go, throwing a deep curved one in there like that!!




Altered State

[SeptemberMorn]

HUH??? And your point is ____?

Just the fact that you mention evolution and Darwin tells me I won't be coming back to this thread!

[bebop]

hmmm sex addiction maybe?

i missed you uri!!!!!!!!!!!

[Boopers]

Hello,

I'm still

Linda

[froggie2]

Ya gotta admit he kinda grows on ya. Don't understand what hes saying but thats ok. Uri I know you don't like this stuff but Happy Thanksgiving anyway.

[URIIADDIVME]

Hmm-

I had a sandwich, a plate of potato salad, flask of wine- was great.

More dependence today.

The first step in evaluating the role of dependence within any particular species is to determine if it is present.
This refers of course only to post natal, behavioraly based, dependence.
Many species do not express such dependence, many do. Did i mention the Siamese Fighting Fish before? Seahorses? Yes and of course the mammals have developed it to probably the greatest extent.

I don't have a definite opinion about social insects, but I have a suspicion that the mammalian forms of perception and motivation are incongruent with theirs.

So, we have this drive, associated with reproduction, which has been poorly defined, so i make an effort to explore it.
Consider the Salmon, a fish famous for its reproductive impulse. It exhibits no dependence but, likely recieves much exclamation for expiring in the process. Not all fish do this.
But then, a species much noted of late, penguins, have managed the antarctic with a complex and intense expression of secondary dependence in the manner of their parenting. There are a few recent documentaries about them. The notable characteristic of course, is that both sexes express secondary dependence.

so I repeat - the offspring's command of the parental response is a mortal issue (for the offspring).
This often comes as a surprise to human males.
Sometimes that can be good, sometimes, less often i wouldn't guess at a percentage, it is disruptive to the individual psyche. Human females are not immune to this but appear, most probably through numerous causes, to evince such disturbance to a lesser extent.

On the other hand-
If socialization is competitive sexual selection but the evolutionary influence of dependence drive is greater than the influence of mate selection, then why are there so many discordant reactions to dependence?
Do I need to list them all?
a couple-
dependent personality
substance dependence
depression and dependence
co-dependence
then turn them all around and add "And vice-versa."
Yeesh! What a day.
(What're those attachment conditions which institutional orphans get? They oughta be in there.)

Where this

[SeptemberMorn]

This one I think I followed! LOL

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
(What're those attachment conditions which institutional orphans get? They oughta be in there.)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

You bet your sweet little bippy they should!

[URIIADDIVME]

Arghh again, I was just reviewing, previewing, what I'd writ an hit continue so this post got split in the middle. Maybe a little break is "a good thing,"?

so where was i?

Where this is going- that's where I was.

We are all more or less aware of the impulse of socialization to control all sexual expression.
These externalized and internalized impulses exert their influence upon reproduction, eroticism and mate selection.
So it's redundant to say it but, selection influences selection. It's called feedback.
Feedback makes musical instruments loud, peacocks feathered, alpha waves, markets jump and drive. It's a great subject.
This particular feedback, with a little help from the weather, made human brains bigger than they really needed to be.
Homo-habilis was not an unsuccesfull species.

But then, dependence has also been expanded.
(Is that your mother calling?)
There are two definite levels where this is experienced or evidenced, the level of individual experience and development and the level of species development and evolution. (H. in particular but not exclusively.)
The human intellect has evolved around the dual socializing influences of sexual selection and behavioral dependence. More than just evolved around, it has been evolved by, from, and with the influence of socialization as selection and dependence as drive.
gonna hafta get gone-
next time- monkey time

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
(What're those attachment conditions which institutional orphans get? They oughta be in there.)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

It's called Reactive Attachment Disorder.

em

[URIIADDIVME]

RAD huh? Thanks, em.

Okay, now it's monkey time.

I'll try and put the punch line right up front first.

Within socialization as competitive sexual selection, developmental experience can significantly influence the individuals' competitive capabilities.

Okay, now I assume we all know of or can readily access information regarding Harlow's macaques (Harry Harlow).
Some of his rather disturbing experiments did reveal much; however, the environment he created was far from natural and not conducive to observing social behaviors.

I recall first reading of this way back in '75 b.c. (before computers) an article based on work done by the Oregon Primate Institute ( hope i got the name right ) and furthered later by others.
Briefly, the social groups of macaque monkeys (Maccaca) exhibit a culture of dominance having a dominant male with lieutenants and a dominant female. The sexes maintain seperate groups with the females and juveniles making a generally cohesive unit.
The requirements of maintaining the social position for the dominant female cause her to intercede in the social learning of her offspring, typically interfering in competitive play conflicts among the young to her offsprings immediate benefit. However, sad but true, the offspring develops impaired or maladaptive social skills which prove detremental upon maturing to independent status.
These socialy incompetent males are mainly denied reproductive opportunity. (I dislike the anthropomorphic label which has in the interum attached itself to the subject.)
This is an example of acquired behavioral characteristics interacting with competitive sexual selection. The obvious evolutionary benefit of this is to reduce inbreeding. If the offspring of the two dominants were viable then the likelyhood of it becoming dominant would seem great.

Now then, humans do not generally have a culture of dominance. I have termed human culture MARO, mutually assured reproductive opportunity. This I restate, is in the general sense of evolution and the entire social population, not in the special sense of the individual.
Essentially, all humans have roughly equivalent chance to reproduce. This operates within some range of opportunities for members and ignores individual health issues.
So first, this sugests some differences between a culture of dominance, where competitive performance is the determinant of reproductive opportunitty and the nature of human society.
In human society social membership, not social status is the determinant of reproductive opportunity. Some of the lowest status members manage the highest rate of reproduction.
So here it is again, the process of socialization is also the competitive arena for humans. The other things are mostly just convention. Achievment and maintenance of social membership is the competitive process.
Freud referred to the early developmental stages as psycho-sexual stages because he perceived them as libidinous and etc., in fact then, they are competitive.
And then there's dependence, dependence as a bimodal drive.
Well, the library closes in five minutes so I gotta do spell check.
till next

[seeker1950]

I love the responses from our forum members....good chuckle!
I am thinking there is a sexual selection heirarchy among humans, though it is much more subtle than what we observe in the other primates. I have observed this for 18 years of teaching middle school adolescents wherein the most attractive, athletic males gravitate toward the most beautiful females, often cheerleaders, etc. Intellect has nothing to do with it, btw. Those students of high intelligence, or quirkiness, seem to postpone or repress the sexual selection process at the adolescent age, I suspect, for fear of rejection. Does this mean they are lower on the evolutionary scale of selection? And then there are those of low intelligence, from economically deprived households, on welfare, who gravitate to sex very early, and, thus, begin producing offspring quickly and rapidly, far outpacing the other two groups in reproduction.

You do realize and acknowledge that dependence on the parents is essential for primates, don't you? The lack of contact and nurturing by the parent(s) to the offspring results in dysfuntional behavior, unless you are talking about salmon or tadpoles.
Patty

[URIIADDIVME]

Interesting start Patty - quite a few questions in there.

Here is one take on mate selection among humans:

Diversity and disparity of apparent feminine attractiveness induces regulation of masculine competition.

I've said that before, recognize that apparent or superficial visual attractiveness does not strongly influence reproductive success. That in the general sense, not in the special or individual sense.

The basis of the claim is that regulation of competition occurs in numerous forms. To quote me-self "Any movement, whether individual or evolutional, away from combative competition and towards ritual and or display is regualtive. The function of society is regulation of competition."
So, a culture of dominance as exhibited by most primates acts to regulate competition. This benefits the dominant members most directly by reducing the level of combat. For instance, among many species that have harums the life of the dominant male, or harum master, is surprisingly short, sometimes measured in weeks after achieving dominance.
Humans do not exhibit a culture of true dominance. I characterize human culture as, diversity and disparity of apparent competitive capacity induces regulation of competition. Also, increased selective variability allows increased genetic diversity.
Humans are the great socializers. Also, utilize acquired characteristics to the greatest extent.
Diversity and disparity of relevant (competitive-selective) characteristics are both active and passive, by my definition, active traits are acquired, passive traits are inherited. So superficial attractiveness is a passive trait, (historically at least) personality adaptations to socialization is active; but, the impulse to socialize? Now it starts to get tricky.
And even trickier, the issue of intelligence. I'll give an example.
About a month ago I was shuffling out in robe and slippers with the trashbin to the garbage can in the brisk early morn when I was spied by a stray cat, feline persuasion. She made a rasping sound of mewish quality and came straight toward my slippers, much relieved, it seemed, to have come upon a human. She was quite starved.
Now, I'm used to barnyard cats who give a quick glare and scatter at your approach, they eat the food you put out, catch rodents, and generally regard you with contempt, unless they feel like it.
I didn't regard this as a very bright cat, but then, it turns out, she's a total indoor cat. When you come in the front from the porch she's typically excited then turns and walks awayfrom the door, into the room. Unusual from my experience. observing her behavior it seems apparent that she was a little old man's pet. Everything she does and likes reflects an old man's diet and habits. Loves the Lazyboy chair, grumbles if you move her, sits up and begs for table scraps. I have to discourage begging however. Yesterday, I was sort of cheering a particular Ftball team, she was on the Lazyboy, I was on the couch, the team made a big blunder, about all I did was roll my eyes in exasperated silence. What did she do? She groaned. A perfectly timed horse moan of dispair. A sound I've never heard come from a cat before.
So is she the dumbell I called her at first impressions? Or is she perfectly attuned to her providers moods?
My expectation, returning to human personality is that, with the exception of some identifiable disorders, genetic or injury induced (etc.), most humans have basiclly equivalent intellective capacity. But a wide range of expression of it.

[seeker1950]

I'm sure everyone here will enjoy hearing about your personal experience with the stray cat, whose behavior and history you have, no doubt, interpreted correctly. LOL, to one who can enjoy a football game and reflect the master's responses!

I'll have to ponder and study the rest of your response, as I'm still not sure I understand your rhetoric, though it sounds like you know your subject very well. Are you a professor?

Patty

[biiv]

Hi there. you have some very intricate thought processes there. i would love to hear your thoughts on the place of homosexuality in your sexual selection and reproduction theories if you have thought about it?
i really love where you said
"with the exception of some identifiable disorders, genetic or injury induced (etc.), most humans have basiclly equivalent intellective capacity. But a wide range of expression of it."
i had come to that conclusion myself a while ago but hadnt managed to express it as clearly and succinctly at all. i think one of the most beautiful aspects of life is the true equality that exists if we can see it.

[URIIADDIVME]

Okay-
No I am not a professor, not hardly, I wouldn't like to give any false impressions.

Homosexuality-
Mostly i just lump it in with all the forms of eroticism.

Eros is one of the styles of sexual expression, the others being mate selection, reproduction and dependence. All are motivated by the sexual drive, which as we know originates with the reproduction of DNA. Now there's a long story, mitossis, meosiss, chromosomal recombination, etc., etc..
On the other hand, it would seem also to be heavily influenced by mate selection, wouldn't it?

Well, i have a little bit of buisness to get to.
Inclusion-exclusion. This is a principle I use to explain a lot of behaviors, both individual and group, or social, behaviors.
But it starts small, it is almost possible to describe the essential action of the cell wall as inclusion-exclusion. Containing, including, desired material and excluding undesired material, almost but not exactly. You need a microscope to see it.
It is almost possible to describe the process of speciation as inclusion-exclusion. You need a macro-scope to see it.
Behavioraly speaking, inc/ex predominates the socializing process, or should I say, the process of socialization?
It is also significant in the process of personality development.
What I'm going to do is let that stew, then I'll get back to you.

A lot of this stuff has to work its way in gradually, it did for me, certainly. I'll tell you a tale, I have this particular text on psychology that details the basic Freudian interpretation circa 1965, I picked it up at a thrift store for fifty cents some years ago and read it. (Personality and Development, a dynamic approach, wish i could give you the author but I don't have it here.) I looked at it again last year, i hadn't touched it since the last time i moved, a decade ago. (Wow, that's a suprise.) And in there, on a blank page, I had scribbled the basics of "Socialization is competitive sexual selection & dependence is a drive, the primary expression by the infant elicits the secondary expression by the parent." Now how did that get there? I wondered. I was certain that i had had the revelation (insight) at a totally different time and place, years later. It took it that long to percolate back up.
So what I'll do is bumble mumble around and refresh this thread or maybe the other from time to time until I think the time is right. Okay? Maybe I'll drop in on some of the other threads as well but don't expect much, I'm not good at advice, especially not at taking it.
But! If anybody wants to jump in on this discussion I'm game, just remember, I can only get online when the library is open.

[seeker1950]

I actually thought of some or your discussions here last evening as I watched a film on mammals in the womb last evening on one of the cable channels...can't remember which, but it was amazing to see the developement of the embryos of dogs, an elephant and a dolphin, since they all start out at the very early stage looking human! Then they change as the various gestation periods progress.

So, how should us humans interpret our foibles, our hurts and recoveries in the process of mate selection? I certainly haven't succeeded in this area, though others seem to have done so. At the same time, I see no real role model I want to emulate. Sorry if this is too pointed and personal a question, but curious to hear your interpretation of those of us who have failed.
Patty

[URIIADDIVME]

Foibles? Did you say foibles? Oh, don't get me started on human foibles.

Here's a point however, the prenatal condition in mammals is a type of dependence, but it is not generally behavioral dependence. In non-placental mammals there is a behavior which occurs when the offspring travels to the pouch to complete developing, such as in panda bears and others. I imagine in zoology texts there is complete terminology for all of this process.
Dependence as a drive refers only to behavioral expressions of dependence.
I have used the acronym MARO for mutually assured reproductive opportunity, but this applies only to the general case of an entire population, not the special case of the individual. MARO of course, explains MAD, mutualy assured destruction, which "guided" our politics through the cold war, but maybe I won't go into detail now.
The point is, in general everyone gets opportunity. This regulates combative competition. The result is a high (relatively) reproductive rate in a species with a long post-natal maturation. Fifteen years is long.
What it means for the individual reminds me of a Sienfeld (sp?) joke- "We're men, we're everywhere, and if there's a woman there, we have a man working on it. It may not be our best man, but we have a guy working it."
Well, hang in there, as they say. But, don't be to critical and don't repeat the same mistakes to often.
Which reminds me; I walked in through the library's book sale and found an unread readers digestion copy of "The Celebrated Jumping Frog and Other Stories" for fifty cents. Haven't seen one in ages. "The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg"? I think maybe next time I'll take a whizz at the creative corner or whatever they're calling it here.
Hmm, maybe I'll even try something brief today, I've still got a few minutes.

[URIIADDIVME]

Such a cold and rainy day haven't got a thing to say. Just won't let it slip away.

Dependence as a drive is profoundly influential upon the evolution of species. More so even than sexual selection.

And don't you forget it!