Better understanding evolution by changing the popular focus

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

Better understanding evolution by changing the popular focus

(this text is a first draft, any comments are welcome.)

Introduction

Charles Darwin. The father of the evolution theory. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, adaptation, random mutation, sexual selection. A well known name and well known concepts. We all know that individuals in a population vary slightly due to genetic drift, random mutation, random recombination and a few other mechanisms. Some of these individuals are better adapted to survive in an environment than others. This includes sexual ability, the ability to secure a mate and reproduce, in effect the reproductive rate. These individuals are the ones that pass on their genes the most. Species change gradually over time, getting better and better adapted to their environment. Sometimes this results in evolutionary races where one species tries to out do another.

When an environment changes, it can suddenly wipe out whole species, leaving only alive those individuals and those species which possess the traits necessary to survive in the new circumstances.
These are the notions that live in todays popular scientific discourse across multiple disciplines and in the popular media (the notions in the field itself might differ).

Our current popular paradigm states:

Natural selection via survival of the fittest.

Focus:

Competition between individuals and species.

Mechanism:

Sexual selection of succesful adaptations gained through random genetic alteration. Variations exist in any population. Some individuals have a higher rate of reproduction. Their genes offer the best combination of adaptation to the environment, fertility and sexual attractiveness. These individuals can pass on their unique traits more succesfully and gradually replace others, thus altering the species.

Theory:

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations by means of natural selection which in turn operates via the mechanism of survival of the fittest random genetic alteration.

Fittest here is meant as the most succesful in reproduction, not necessarily the strongest.

Sources of the popular notions for evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
http://www.livescience.com/topics/evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_0
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080622111809AAZsx7G

Challenge

I claim that the popular focus for evolution theory is wrong. I propose that the most important pressure source behind evolution is change in the biophysical environment across space and time. Organisms for which a change in circumstances is significant will change on a functional level whereas organisms for which a change is not significant will merely expand existing capabilities and features. Only via changing circumstances can all life be explained. It is the mechanism behind creating new species. Adaption, survival of the fittests, random mutation and recombination, these are just some of the supporting mechanisms that allow species to change. If the media focus shifted from these supporting mechanisms toward the main cause behind evolution, the broad popular multi discipline discourse on evolution could change for the better.

Of course, this is a bold statement and might rub people the wrong way. And i am not exactly schooled in evolution theory, so i might be talking out of my backside. Perhaps what i state is already very well known. Then again, this is the Internet and this is just a blog.

I came to this theory because i had trouble understanding how the mechanism of evolution that are popularized in media could ever have had enough time (alteration cycles) to produce some of the functional aspects organism have that seem so useful that they could be interpreted as man made. There had to be something missing. Of course this was just a feeling or a mere guess. Yet it made me try to reconstruct how evolution might happen.

Biophysical circumstances as the main evolutionary pressure

Natural selection via changing circumstances

Did you ever wonder why some animals seem to have such useful appendices? Take the crab. It has an armored shell to protect itself. It has large claws to pick stuff up and defend itself. It's eyes are on stilts. This creature seems almost like something that is designed by a human. Our engineers designed many mechanical devices for us that are similar to the claws of a crab. Like diggers, cranes, etc. We also made armored vehicles to protect ourselves from gunfire. Now the key question is: how would you (randomly or otherwise) mutate a bacteria into a tank with claw? Into something that seems so purposefully designed? How many cycles of reproduction and alteration would you need to achieve this? Given that the biophysical circumstances an organism lives in do not change?

Let's put it another way. You have a shark population in the ocean. Species X. You can easily imagine, that those individuals that are slightly faster, more agile and bigger might dominate. In other words, the species gets bigger and faster. Fins change form over time for more speed. Mouths, eyes, etc. do the same. So the original humble species X might evolve into a huge creature like a great white which has a big mouth, or a mako which is very fast. But why on Gods earth would it ever crawl out of the ocean? Or develop lungs? Why would changes that have no use be rewarded and build into species altering appendices that have a function the original species never needed to survive? Oceanic circumstances have remained fairly constant for millions of years at a stretch, with some variation in temperature and salinity. No need to reward individuals with oddly shaped fins that allow you to crawl in the deep ocean. Yet there is the epaulette shark.

Changing circumstances across space

Here we see that the popular focus for evolution theory is wrong. It's not only about survival of the fittest and genetic alteration. These are mere mechanics. The driving engine are the characteristics of the environment: circumstances. The reason a fish that can crawl is rewarded is that it can occupy a new circumstance: land.
What defines a new circumstance you might ask?  Any available difference to the original biophysical environment a species originated in that rewards a genetic variant of the original form. It can be a layer of colder water under a layer of warmer water. It can be a different type of food in the same layer of water. Another options is that the layer changes due to an event like tectonic plate movement.

Let's now take a look now how circumstances as opposed to just random alteration and survival of the fittest can far better explain the rate of evolution, the multitude of species and the designed appearance of life forms.

Basic setup

Suppose you have a bacteria of type B1 in environment E1. See picture 1.

-Cycle is the (random or otherwise) alteration cycle. An alteration cycle is the time it takes changes in the DNA to produce a functional difference in an organism.

-E1 is an environment at 10 meters of depth in the ocean, with rocks along the bottom of type 1.

-The bacteria of the type B1 has a flagellum to move it, pili to grip a surface and a membrane to conduct material interaction with the environment, letting food pass through but keeping out salt. These features are all adapted for survival in E1.

Adaptation and reward

If the environment remains the same what adaptation would be rewarded? There is no need for a thicker membrane, that just costs more food. The same goes for different pili. However, a faster rate of movement might get you more food. So the rewarded adaptation is:

B1 -> B2: larger flagellum.

If you follow the current focus of evolution theory, eventually you would just get bacteria with larger flagella. The other adaptations are not rewarded and lose ground in the population.

However, suppose that next to environment 1 (E1) there is another one. E2. This one has a different rock type that requires extra grip. So the rewarded adaptation is:

B1 -> B3: pili of a shape that provides more grip. In this case hook-like pili.

Similar, there could be an adjacent environment to E1 called E3. This is a deeper environment. The pressure is higher. So the rewarded adaptation is:

B1 -> B4: thicker membrane. 

picture1: click to enlarge.

Now let's continue to picture 2. We continue from E2. If everything else remains the same, B3 would evolve into B6 which has a larger flagellum to catch more food.

Suppose in the adjacent environment E4 there is more salt. That would result in B7, a bacteria that can survive the higher salinity via a thicker membrane. If everything else again remains the same, B7 would evolve to B8 with a larger flagellum during Cycle 3.

If you now look back at picture 1, do note that the bacteria B1 from E1 would just be the same always if no circumstances changed, except with larger and larger flagellum. In E4 B8 has this larger flagellum but also pili that provide more grip and a thicker membrane.

picture2: click to enlarge.

The evolution rate

We can surmise that environmental changes over space contribute greatly to the outcomes of the random alteration reward system. Many more alterations are rewarded. So you have more change with the same amount of random alteration cycles.

In picture 1 B1 does not die out, because E1 continues, it just grows faster. However E2 and E3 produce a fundamentally different species. These in turn also grow faster, if everything remains the same.

There is a famous example in evolution where butterflies with black wings survived better in certain areas during the early industrial revolution in England, because the trees were covered with soot. Do note that here no such catastrophe was needed, just slightly different adjacent circumstances.

Features that appear designed

Let's continue with picture 2. Suppose that E5, adjacent to E4, has less food. In order to guide more food to the membrane, the pili develop more substructures. So the rewarded adaptation is:

B8 -> B9: increased surface area of the pili.

Now suppose that adjacent to E5 there is an environment that has still water. The current is none existent. In E5 the flagellum and the movement of the water were enough to ensure that enough food passed along the membrane. But in E6 it's a different story. Through random alteration, pili that happen to get movement parts attached to them are rewarded. Now the bacteria can not not only swim but also move water towards its membrane laterally. It's adapted to E6 (B11).

To the casual observer it might seem that the bacteria has a very useful device. A sort of fan that pushed food to its membrane. Somewhat similar to the mechanical arm of a digger. It must be designed, what else could explain it? There is no way that natural selection through survival of the fittest and random alteration could have produced it in the old environment E1. There is no reason for B1 in E1 to evolve such a device and have it be rewarded. This complex device must have been purposely designed by God to operate in E6.

However if you follow the history you can see that B1 changed into B11 through B3, B7, B8, B9 and B10. The pili received functional change upon functional change, eventually resulting in the mechanical fan.

We can now surmise that changing circumstances also contribute greatly to the rate of functional change over time. And thus to the creation of species that are fundamentally different (not just bigger better faster), or in other words to biodiversity. Changes randomly build on top of each other, producing functionalities for the organism that to the casual observer might seem designed.

Changing circumstances across time

Now that we looked at space, we can look at time. Changing circumstances across time are far better known, since they have been popularized in the media. For example: extinction events like the fall of the dinosaurs. When circumstances change in the same environment the effect on evolution is much more dramatic. Suddenly individuals find themselves possessing the right adaptations or not.

Let's look at picture 3. In environment 1 random alteration produces B2, B3 and B4. B3 and B4 are alterations that survive better than B1 in the adjacent environments of E2 and E3 (picture 1 & 2). However in environment 1 they are of little use. So the bacteria of type B3 and B4 that remain in E1 have small numbers. The successful adaptation for E1 is B2, with the larger flagellum that allows it to move faster and thus catch more food.

Now let's suppose that E1 suddenly changes. Due to volcanic activity the ocean floor of E1 sinks several meters. Suddenly the large number of B2 and small number of B3 die out due to the increase in water pressure. The small number of B4 flourish to become dominant.

Similar to the changing circumstance over space, we can see that changing circumstances over time also contribute to the process of natural selection, drawing the mainstream focus of evolution theory even further from survival of the fittest via random alteration as the engine behind evolution, in favor of changing circumstances.

picture3: click to enlarge.

Evolution via survival of the fittest in a non changing environment

Lets now take a look at what the mechanisms from the popular media focus accomplish on their own, via picture 4. Supposedly the main cause behind evolution is that the genes that are best adapted to the enviroment (including sexual selection) survive via competition.

Suppose you have bacteria B1 in environment E1. Through random alteration it develops three variations, a thicker membrane (B4), different shapes of pili (B3) and a larger flagellum (B2). In Cycle 1 the rock type did not change and neither did the pressure. There is no benefit to the alterations of B3 and B4, and these types eventually die out. B2 however can gather food more quickly than B1, B3 and B4 and therefore becomes dominant.

We can surmise that if the enviroment does not change and we solely rely on competition, species do not change functionally, or at least not very fast. The change is not in the function of body parts, but rather their efficiency. A good example are ever more exotic birds of paradise, larger and larger crocodiles, etc. No really new species are created. A bird of paradise remains a flying bird, it doesn't become an ostrich.

picture4: click to enlarge.

Conclusion

It maybe clear that the environment provides the main evolutionairy pressure that rewards functional change in an organism and genetic alteration is just the mechanism (quote: James Feston). And it is not only change in the current environment that drives evolution. Alterations may allow individuals of a species to occupy adjacent environments to the one occupied by non mutated members. The original focus as stated in the introduction can now be replaced.

Our new paradigm states:

Natural selection via changing circumstances.

Focus:

Changing circumstances over time and space.

Mechanisms:

Circumstantial selection of adaptations gained through random genetic alteration.

Mobility of individuals across space.
Some individuals have traits that provide a better combination of survival chances, fertility and reproductive succes in the circumstances they find themselves in. Succesive generations of these individuals gradually replace the old population or colonize new territory. In this succesion all traits are passed on, not just the ones that gave the competitive edge.

Theory:

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations by the mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection is based on the change or absence there off, of circumstances across space and time. These changes reward those specific alterations that are best adapted to a new enviroment.

Media support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8 (added 29-1-17)

Obviously none of the scientific content mentioned in this article is news. The point is that popular discourse should shift its focus towards changes in circumstances in favor of competition, alteration, adaptation and sexual selection.

Round Square Triangle Star

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

(first draft, comments welcome)

Square

I think politicians should do the right thing. Help people. Provide a better way. Make choices based on a moral compass instead of self interest.

So many are corrupt media addicts. Always there for the promotional snapshot. Never there to help the poor. Too busy enjoying the public money they funneled to their corporate buddies at the expense of the environment.

And it's not just the politicians. It's managers, doctors, the media, neighbors, family members. If only they could just do the right thing. You know, the thing that is right.

I protest. I show up at meetings. I ask the painful questions. I blog, twitter, shout at people. Do the right thing!

Me, the man that stands for something. You can build on me.

Round

People are usually pretty much ok. Nice to hang out with. You give some, you take some. I do as the rest and keep my head down. If i see someone in need, and i have the time, i will help them. Yes i will help them!

Me, the ok guy. Not too shabby, not too fancy. Little bit of this, little bit of that.

Triangle

People are animals. They chase their own interests, if not their own tails. I go with the flow. If opportunity comes my way.. Gotta look out for number one. Politicians are people that were able to conquer a pretty sweet spot in life. We all wish we could. I do look out for my people, but screw the rest. Only the have-nots complain. Only have-nots have morals. Once they have...

Me, the realist. A nice guy, but you gotta do what you gotta do. There is a time for love, and a time to be greedy. Don't pretend to be better.

Star

I am the one. I achieve. I conquer. I get things done. There are no obstacles. There is only the will. People are in charge of their own happiness. Don't like something? Change it. You can if you want to. I sure did. What is possible for me is possible for you, by default. If you don't succeed, blame yourself, not your environment.

Me, the master of my fate.

Box

I study. There seem to be various kinds of people. Rich and poor, smart and less smart, with strong or weak morals, and so on. In all combinations possible. How come?

If i were given the task to optimize society for happiness..

Lets see.. Most people seem to have basic needs. Housing, food, sex, a friend, and something to do. They get really grumpy without these things, specifically the French. Next, education seems to help people develop more mentally, which helps with relationships and general skills to deal with existence in this world. Personal freedom seems important but also freedom from negative actions by others.

Riots seem to occur less in social environments that are inclusive and have unbiased social rules, laws and government than in environments that contain large groups of somehow excluded people. Fairness seems to enhance the feeling of freedom and belonging, cohesion and all that.

Depending on the social environment and personal development people seem to either make social choices or selfish ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_disintegration) thus contribution to a social or anti social environment. It's a feedback loop thingy! Probably related to the flux capacitator.

Seems like a very programmable bunch, these humans. You can create all sorts if you have control. Philanthropist billionaires. Anti social beggars. Enlightened believers.

Let's tinker a bit. Perhaps some kind of constitution based on do no harm and no harm shall come to you. And let's be a bit fair and make sure everyone can afford the whole house-family-car-vacation thingy. So a couple of nice laws, agencies and institutions as well. Education surely makes for a better debate between neighbors.The media can serve as an outlet for social justice and warm fuzzy feelings. The deserving awkward boy gets the pretty good hearted girl, and vice versa. Etc.

Now how to get it all voted in. Seems that telling people they are wrong rubbs them the wrong way. And telling them the right way gets them really upset. Not Vulcans, these humans. You can tell a pround mechanic how to build a better car, or ask him to make sense of some designs you found.

Perhaps a feel good movie. That always gets them going. George Clooney and Julia Roberts. They adopt a rich snobby kid and a poor disgruntled one. Let's google...Gavin MacIntosh and Jaden Smith! Perfect. Then a lot of conflict scenes and a happy ending once they realize friendship is worth more than money and anger. Oh how nice to live in an utopia. And after that a bunch of fanfare and a great speech about reaching the moon because it's hard but very shiny. Got a studio for that just around the corner.

And guess what, seems like the happier a society is, the more stuff it produces. Always wanted a mansion in orbit. But it's probably gonna be a time share. Well one guy with all the toys is too North Korean for me anyway. So much jealousy. That guy must live in a fortress.

Me... the man that wonders. Usually i have no clue. A good place to start is by looking around and wonder.



....


Wow... far out dude!

The fear of Fascism

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

The fear of Fascism

(this text is a first draft. comments and suggestions are welcome via email.)

Fascism. Short definition: our own come first. Consequence: horror. Examples: Hitler and Mussolini. In recent times all kinds of people have been telling us that fascism is back, or that fascism is on the rise again. Politicians, reporters, activists, etc. As examples they use the so called right wing movements in Hungary, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Russia, etc. They mention leaders like Wilders, Trump and Le Penn.

You the reader might ask the following questions.

Is this true?

What typifies a fascist movement?

What environmental circumstances are needed for fascism to rise?

Or if we dig a little deeper:

What actually is fascism?

How do humans come to this behavior?

How do they behave normally?

And in conclusion:

Is todays world indeed going to hell in a hand basket?

The easy questions

The word fascism comes from the Latin fasces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism), which translates to bundle of rods. It means together we are stronger. There are many definitions of what the word means today. I choose to define it via the main ideas of the recent historic examples which the vast majority of historians classify as typical of fascism.

Fascism: our own groups needs come before those of any other group because our group is superior. We have the right to take what we need, and we will do so united.

Typically (historically) a fascist movement consists of those that believe they are superior to others. The group is always led by a great leader. A single person who embodies the movement. There is only one truth, the worldview of the movement.

The circumstances in which the movement rises are those of political, social and economic chaos. When there is suffering without a direct known cause with a whole host of possible culprits. The great leader clears up the confusion by providing a worldview, identifying the enemies and setting a goal. Uncertainty is replaced by one clear 'reality'. Usually a high degree of the content that makes up the new reality is false, made up, intentionally or not.

The hard questions: human behavior

In fascism there seems to always be an enemy. Let's list a few mechanics behind human behavior and see how they work out in several adversarial scenarios. Pehaps we can gain some insight into fascism. Do note these are just short summaries taken from other texts.

The mechanics of discrimination

People discriminate in order to make sense of the world. Discrimination means the ability to tell one object apart from another. Objects differ by the features that stand out, to us as human beings, invidually or collectively. Another word for standing out is salience. The salience of the features an object has is not only based upon (initial) experience, but also on teaching and our imagination. Via the features we perceive as salient we create concepts of each object we encounter, whether it is a person or a piece of material.
A concept is an internal virtual representation of what something is. An orange is orange, round, slightly sour and edible. These concepts allow us to act quickly in future encounters. Reacting via stored data is much faster than gathering new data. Concepts also serve as tools for discrimination themselves. They bring order to our world, arranging it into understandable and related bits. Concepts are also not the end result of the discrimination proces, but rather it is a continuous feedback loop. Initial discrimation allows us to form concepts which then in turn guide further discrimination as new data comes in, not only of the inital subject (the orange) but also other subjects (fruit). This new data can alter or reinforce our concepts.

Concepts, opinions and beliefs

The data we use for our concepts mostly comes from incidental exposure to sources. Most concepts are formed subconsciously and without intent. If you never had an orange, and you happen to catch a conversation discussing their deliciousness, your choice in the supermarket two months later will be influenced even if you don't remember the conversation. You had formed an intial concept only containing delicious. If you have only ever seen a picture of an orange, you would still have unconciously formed a concept of round and orange even though you had no actual physical experience. If someone then offered you processed orange juice your concept would expand to include that taste, even though fresh orange juice tastes very different. If you made the concious decision to go to the local supermarket and carefully examine all it's produce for their shape, taste, smell, feel and weight, then your exposure would be deliberate and your concepts largely the results of intent. Color exposure still would be incidental.
An opinion is a judgement, viewpoint or statement concerning a certain topic or object. They are formed and maintened much in the sameway as our concepts are, and in fact rely heavily on the data our concepts provide. Similar to concepts, opinions can get reinforced or altered via experience, teaching and imagination.

A belief usually consists of a complex mix of opinions that had much more reinforcement over a greater span of time.

Our concepts, opinions and beliefs can change over time, fed by new information from experience, teaching and imagination. However there is a build in resistance to change, especially for opinions and beliefs. Our opinions and beliefs become part of our identity over time. Of who we are and how we act. We tend to defend them.

Complete realities

People like their realities to be as complete as possible in order to predict what might happen. They like to create a closed concept when it comes to anything. A concept that covers any and all possible outcomes from A to Z. If there is not enough information from sources like experience and teaching, we make up the rest with our imagination. This is a natural survival instinct. If you can predict a situation, you can act effectively. The unknown makes us fearfull, we lack control. Hence religion, doctrine and dogma. Any missing data in our concepts, opions and beliefs is automatically and eventually completed by our imagination.

The sufficient self

Healthy individuals can not accept another as completely superior to themselves. Even when the evidence is clear. It's a defense mechanism. Motivation for any action (for instance self preservation) becomes troublesome if you think of yourself as less. You think of yourself, when all things are considered, as equal or better. Even if you admire a certain quality in someone else. Imagination can play a big part when it comes to forming concepts to support this notion.

Group mechanics

People have an instinct to group. In order to do so we use discrimination (which can be fed by our imagination). We build up concepts of the people around us. If possible, we seek out similar individuals like ourselves in any situation.

Via interaction we determine what the commonly held beliefs and behaviors are. We adhere to these in order to belong and to be able to work together. We sacrifice some of our individual notions that might differ. These beliefs and behaviors become our group identity. They way we perceive the world, our own place in it, and the way we want to behave.

This group identity becomes part of our own individual identity. It gives us a home. We defend it at all costs. Most individual are part of several of these group identities (family, village, tribe, nation, but also football club, work department, political party, etc.).

Since the group identities are part of our own individual identity, it is very hard to accept a superior group identity above our own. All groups think of themselves as 'better'.

Usually during the formation of our identity leaders arise. Via the mechanics of discrimination we determine which individuals are the most powerful in our group. We seek safety and position by supporting them. This also gives them a bigger influence in shaping our group identity and determining subsequent behavior.

Once formed groups establish relationships with other groups based on a number of factors like relative power, wealth, familiarity, similarity, the compatibility of goals and leadership. We again use the mechanics of discrimination to guide us in this process by building concepts of the other groups. Do note that when there is insufficient data from other sources, we use our imagination to fill in the blanks.

Conflict

The relations between groups can be hostile. When facing a perceived or real threat a group will attempt to defend itself using one or various methods, depending on such factors as relative power, technology, beliefs, and familiarity with the enemy.

The same will happen when we find ourselves in competition with another group. As individuals can be selfish, for groups it's the default stance. Our own come first. It comes from our need, we need the object of the competition, and the intrinsic belief that all groups posses: 'we are superior'. Thus we have the right to take what we need.

When we perceive our physical power to be greater, and all other factors have neutral values, we usually choose to take. If the enemy is more or equally as powerful, we might negotiate.

However, for our own psychology it's usually healthier to first demonize the competition into an enemy. Most groups think very highly of themselves as moral beings. Simply attacking another group in order to gain material wealth is incompatible with our self image. There needs to be clear 'evidence' that the other group is in fact inferior and up to no good. So then we might create images like the Axis of Evil, the Eternal Jew, the Red Menace, the Decadent West, etc.

Variables of the enemy

Every enemy operates via a certain mechanism to produce a certain negative effect in order to serve a certain goal. The enemy can be known or unknown. This also goes for the mechanism. As for the effect, there will always be a perceived effect. The actual effect again can be known or unknown. The same goes for the goal. Goal and effect can be the same.

For instance, we the poor could be facing increased taxation by the rich lords. The effect is a decrease of our wealth. The perceived goals is an increase in theirs. We rebel. The lords come with an army and expel us from our lands. The actual goal they were after was to repurpose the land, not to gain coin. The rebellion gave them an excuse to come in.

There can be many or few enemies, mechanisms, effects and goals.

Scenarios

We listed some of the mechanics of how humans relate to the world and each other. We listed some of the variables when it comes to an opponent. Now we can draw several scenarios and attempt to ascertain what might happen. This of course might be more an exercise in speculation than science, without hard data.

Scenario 1

There is 1 known enemy who operates via 1 known mechanism which produces 1 known actual effect & goal. We are in the Middle East around 1992. Saddam used his army to occupy Kuwait, our dear dear friends, in order to get richer. Reality is complete. There is no uncertainty, no need to use our imagination. The only job of our leadership is to organize us to fight. We as a group rally around any leader who will say: 'i will fight this enemy come follow me'. Then we do so.

Scenario 2

There is 1 known enemy who operates with an unknown mechanism which produces 1 perceived effect in order to serve 1 known goal. We are in America around the year 1750. Our enemy is the native American. The native Americans have been known to raid our villages and kill cattle. They want us gone. For sometime our farmers have found dead cattle in the fields. A bacteria is the cause. However we lack the science to understand this. Reality is incomplete. The job for our leaders is to determine how the cattle is killed, and put a stop to it. Our leaders will have to resort to imagination in order to produce a complete reality.

We as a group rally around any leader who will say: 'the native Americans are poisoning our cattle in order to drive us out. I will fight this enemy come follow me'. Then we do so.

Do note, dead cattle was a perceived effect from enemy action. There was no actual effect from enemy action since there was no enemy action.

Scenario 3

There is an unknown enemy who operates via a known mechanism which produces a known effect with a unknown goal. We are in ancient pagan Rome around 100 AD. Christians, barbarians and slaves are inferior beings. Our houses have been set on fire in the middle of the night. We did not see who did it. Vague figures in the night, running around with torches. The fire produced homelessness but who did it and why? Reality is incomplete.

The job of our leader is to find out who the enemy is, what their goals is and fight them. Creative imagination is used. Slaves are powerless and in our homes, we would know if they were absent. Barbarians do not live in Rome. However Christians live among us. They are a strange people, worshiping 1 God instead of many. Perhaps they want us dead. Religion is a known cause of conflict.

We as a group rally around any leader who will say: 'the Christians are burning down our houses because they want to purify the land. I will fight this enemy come follow me'. Then we do so.

This leader might be a landlord, who himself set fire to his own neighborhood in order to clear out the poor and make room for development.

As you can see, we can draw up many many scenarios and speculate about how people might react. However for the purposes of this text one scenario is particularly interesting. Do note that in any case we humans seek out a complete reality. This can lead to dangerous consequences as we saw in the previous scenarios where 1 or 2 factors were unknown. What if everything is unknown? Including the numbers?

Scenario 4

There are an unknown enemies who operate via an unknown mechanisms which produce unknown effects in order to achieve unknown goals. We are in Germany in the year 1930. We are suddenly poor after the crash of 1929. A lot of us lost our jobs in the span of just a few months after. There is violence and mayhem all around. We do not know who caused this situation and why. We feel helpless.

There are many countries who opposed us or our friends in the past. England, France, Russia, Serbia, America. There are many groups and ways of thinking in our country. Communists, capitalists, liberals, democrats, hooligans, etc. There are many races we have been told. Jews, Slavs, Asians, Negroes, etc. All of these might have certain goals. All of these might have various methods. All we have is two perceived effects. Our poverty and mayhem in the streets. Reality is not only incomplete, it is highly confusing. We need closed uniform concepts in order to make sense of the world and make us into a coherent group.

The first job of the leader is to determine who we are, and who we are not. The second job of the leader is to find out who our enemies are, what their goals are, and how they produced our current predicament. Usually the existing leadership gets replaced. They were in charge when the world was still a place of certainty. Often their support dwindles because they can neither explain the new uncertainty nor were able to prevent it.

We as a group rally around any leader who will say: 'we are the Aryan race, the one and true noble Germanic race deserving of world domination. The Jews are the main evil doers behind communism and capitalism which in turn seek to destroy the Aryan race in order to rule the world. Their lies make us fight each other. I will unite us and bring order. I will fight these enemies come follow me'. And then we do so.

Supporting texts: the mechanics of discrimination and the high horse effect. 

A hypothesis of fascism

Fascism is a natural behavior for any group to engage in. It's simply putting the needs of our own group above that of others, supported by the belief that our own group identity is superior to that of another.

We do it all the time everywhere. We put our own family above those of others. We put our own decent neighborhoods needs above that of the adjacent crappy one. Jocks are better than Nerds. Yankee fans are superior to Red Sox fans. True red blooded Americans are more deserving of the worlds resources than Muslims. Islam is the only true faith and all heretics deserve to perish. Etc.

A fascist movement is a movement that is led by a great leadership in which a single closed world view provided by the movement replaces any and all preexisting other notions and questions about the world. In this world view the home group is deemed superior to all other groups and under threat by a multitude of foes.

Drawing on the previous descriptions of the mechanics behind human behavior we will assume this hypothesis of fascism and the definition of a fascist movement both as correct and proven going forward. This is OK for a purely philosophical text to do. It's simply so we can progress with the story. If you want to base policy on this text, actual research is needed.

Todays world and fascism

Now that we have claimed fascism as a natural behavior, we can once more return to the concerns of all those politicians and activists that keep warning us about the increase in fascism.

Fascism is natural everyday behavior. So what are they so worried about?

Well, they refer to fascism that is organized along similar lines of the historic examples. A fascism that is dominating the other types of human behavior, such as cooperation and compassion, trade and exchange. They fear the known consequences of these types of movements. Holocausts, mass arrests, deportations, racism, etc.

Are they right?

Well we need to examine if the circumstances are present that created the historic examples and if the current movements bear important similarities to the old ones.

Let's look at America. Generally middle class and poor people perceive themselves as suffering. They think they are worse off than before. Jobs are going overseas. Immigrants flood the country. Neighborhoods change. Cooperations seem to hold all the power. Sea levels are supposedly rising. There are worse storms more frequently. Everything is connected via the Internet. Globalization has done away with the old system of the West vs the rest (and with the winning). There is a media that feed their need for ratings by making every little occurrence terrifying breaking news.

In many European, Latin and Asian countries similar circumstances are present. Great leaders have arisen to give us a closed belief system of reality. They provide a means to make sense of the world again, and identify enemies, the cause of our misery.

In the Philippines a great leader is killing anyone perceive to be related to drugs. Not poverty is the cause of suffering, and thus drug use, but drug use itself is the cause of poverty. In America there is a great leader who claims the established politicians are the cause, along with Muslims and immigrants. He promises a wall along the border with a poorer nation, a registration for Jews Muslims and an end to the influence of 'the leftist cronies'. In the Netherlands a great leader claims that Muslim immigrants are destroying the country, along with the European Union and the establishment. He proposes to halt the progress of immigrants, reverse some of the influence of the Union and defeat the establishment. In Syria a great movement has sprung up that will clear out all the unbelievers and their corrosive behavior, in order to establish the one true Islamic state.

Many of these leaders and their movements are quite recent. Post 1990 factors like globalization first became significant in peoples lives and the old world view of the west vs the rest broke down, leaving a lot of uncertainty.

As far as this author can determine, the people that warn us about an increase in fascism seem to have a point. We could devolve again in a world that is typified by conflict between self obsessed groups, ending the post World War 2 era of international cooperation and exchange (many countries do work together well currently and things like scientific ideas flow freely).

Do note, in this text we only look at fascism and the behavioral mechanics behind it. We do not examine the motivations of those that ring the alarm bells. Fascism can take many forms and outward appearances. Many well intended movements can devolve into this behavior. The fascist left has killed as many people in the world war 2 era as the fascist right.

Conclusions

Fascism is a natural behavior. Fascism can become dangerous when it overtakes our other behaviors. Fascist movements can cause wars and limit human development via the sole focus on one group. The world has become more uncertain since the end of the cold war, the rise of globalization and global pollution. A breeding ground for great leaders that will show us the one and only truth.
However, the world has not gone to hell in a hand basket just yet. There are many entities such as the European and African Unions, India, the United States, the scientific community etc. who promote cooperation and learning as opposed to self obsession.

Like anything else, all human behavior is fine, we just have to watch out for excesses and deal with them.

The high horse effect

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

The high horse effect

An objective stance? Thinking before we speak? Looking for data? Risk it might not support our opinions?

As humans, we are flat out against these. 

Here is how and why.

The mechanics

As any animal, we quickly asses a situation and then we act. It's a survival mechanism. Those who pause might get eaten. Only via a conscious will can we attempt to actually look at something, and try to find out how it works. Many people today would either quickly kill snakes when they encounter them, or run away. If it works, this first reaction usually sticks. People will repeat it in the future. A few will attempt to study the animal. Those that do usually profit. For instance they find out that snakes control pests. It's better to create safe lanes for humans in a field of corn, than to kill snakes.

The same goes for opinions. We have many daily interactions with other humans, nature, technology etc. For some of the more complex interactions we rely on preformed opinions to enable us to interact quickly. Basically these are preformed judgements, viewpoints or assumptions. They are not facts in the sense that they have been verified.
Opinions can be the result of reasoning. Arriving at some conclusion based on the available data after carefull consideration. However as humans we need a great many opinions. Too many to form conciously. Should the ventilator be on or off at work? Should i buy apples from store X or Y? A way to save time is the unconsciously formed opinion. Our need is not to find truth, which takes time, but rather to be able to interact efficiently (which usually means quickly). And once the opinion is formed, we rarely go back to consciously examine things. If we had to do that for every opinion we formed, we would never have time for actually doing something. Only if we experience total failure of an opinion might we attempt to replace it.

The nature, content and mechanism for unconciously formed opinions are as follows. We rely on incomplete information from sources like experience, teaching and our own imagination. The method for collecting this data is unconscious incidental exposure. The actor that compiles out of this enormous pile of data a usable datastring the moment we need an opinion is the unconscious mind. Only it has the processing speed to almost instantly deliver. Usually an emotion is attached to the opinion. We like or dislike something. Others can quickly understand how we feel about a certain topic via empathy. This again saves a great deal of time. The common opinion usually consists a short statement, sometimes accompanied with a short reasoning based on the data we have. Fast and easy.

Opinions can be carried from interaction to interaction, eventually becoming part of us. They can be reinforced or broken down by new data from sources like experience, imagination and teaching. Opinions are usually kept unless the other side in a discussion can present data to the contrary that we perceive as factual. In groups individuals usually accept the commonly held opinions. 
A belief is more or less an extended opinion, more deeply ingrained. A much larger story often comprised of multiple elements that had much more reinforcement. However the method for acquiring the data on which we base the belief is the same: incidental. And again we usually attach an emotion to the belief. Since their structure is more complex, relying on more data points, beliefs are much harder to alter than opinions.

Example: your parents might teach you all your life that snakes are from the devil, thus transferring their belief (and emotion!) to you. However, compared to the active will behind a study, it's an incidental method of gathering data. Your parents just happen to believe that snakes are evil, and you just happen to be the recipient of this belief, as opposed to being born in another family. When someone comes along and tells you snakes are just animals, not good or bad, you won't be convinced. Even if that person argues their benefits as a pest control, this would not counter the link between the devil and snakes.

Opinions and beliefs allow us to act efficiently in the world. As a metaphor one could use that of a pair of colored glasses. The sets of opinions and beliefs we posses make us see the world in a certain light. The benefit is speed, they allow us to make choices very quickly by not showing the other colors. Thus they provide a great deal of automation in our behavior. However this pre determination in our behavior can be a drawback. It limits our options for response. We also have trouble looking at things in another light. This effect is enhanced by the fact that we value our opinions and beliefs greatly. Over time they become part of our identities, of who we are as a person. It is natural to defend them, both for groups and individuals. If our opinions and beliefs could be quickly overcome, we would fall apart as a person, unable to act in a consistent manner. This defense however brings another limit to our behavior. Our ability to respond to conflicting data is diminished.

Getting high

Since opinions and beliefs often have an emotion attached, overuse of beliefs and opinions can produce an emotion induced chemical high and become addictive. It's what i call the high-horse effect. It's similar to what happens in the brain of an adrenaline junky. As for the science behind this: see wikipedia on the limbic system and neuro transmitters.

This high might occur during any group event where people activate each others beliefs time and again. Easy examples are of course protest marches. However when evaluating a new product in a business meeting the same might occur.

People can also produce this high all by themselves and it can last for a life time. A woman might read a lot of articles by the feminist movement. In the absence of other data, she might form a feminist opinion after one or two articles. A few articles ahead it becomes a belief. She then starts to actively interpret everything she experiences through this belief. If continually stimulated by related events, she might become high. She might become addicted, and proclaim her belief to the world. Any data that counters this belief, and thus the high, will be disregarded, or more often, reinforce the belief via our defensive tendency.

Often these highs are produced via interactions with groups or individuals that have contradicting beliefs. In such a situation both sides could get high, which can be a factor in escalation.

Drawbacks

Opinions and beliefs are usually the product of the automated side of our human being. Science on the other hand is a product of our conscious mind, the part of us that allows us to say: hey, stop, let's take a look. There is nothing unnatural about automated beliefs and opinions. However they can work against us. Our options for interaction become limited. Also there is the possibility of becoming high which can be dangerous. When it comes to movements, the resistance to new data is especially limiting. Our beliefs can outstrip facts by a certain margin and thus become ineffective.

For instance, feminism is partly based on facts, and partly on beliefs. In the past, women could not vote, could not go to college, etc. If there ever was a divorce, a woman was simply kicked out of the home without any rights. One of the more common feminist beliefs is that a woman needs protection from a man. Another is that a woman should be the primary support for the children. In addition, it is believed that a woman cares more about her children, while the man is likely to be less involved.

Much has changed for the better, towards equality. However feminist beliefs actually led to men ending up on the negative side of a new inequality (source: Karen Straughan & Dave Rubin). In contemporary American divorce law, a woman is right by default. A divorced man often finds himself cut off from his family. He is now the one that gets kicked out of the house without any rights. Visitation depend on whether or not the woman decides to call her husband violent in court. This leads to a lot of suffering, this time on the male side of the equation. Men also love their children. Though men are reportedly more violent, a lot of the violence within relations does come from women, whether physical or emotional.

Conclusion

The high horse effect can plague any person or movement. It's quite a natural phenomenon. A good idea is to always implement a fact check whenever we face an important issue. Another good tip is to examine alternative ideas and beliefs for their merits.