Demigawd

"Try running purely by instinct for a bit and see how well that works for you."

I thought that's what he's been doing all along. Instead of flinging actual feces at us, he's doing it virtual-style with his comments.

Jobar

OK, enough with the flames. If you think that WJ is- ahem- intellectually challenged, just ignore him.

WJ, if you continue with such inappropriate and irrelevant posts, I will start deleting them. We welcome intelligent dissent- but if you cannot be cogent and reasonable, I suggest you be gone. Jobar, moderator.

Dr S

(snatchbalance) I think that the primary human sexual attractants remain physical; body type, sound of voice, phemerones, etc.
(S) Without a doubt. But think of this, would you consider a retarded person as a potential mate, someone whose genes would be passed on with yours? Or someone with a tiny head, say the size of a chimps? That's an important part of body type. The sound of the voice, for that matter having a voice at all, is dependent on the brain being over-sized. Would you mate with someone who could only hoot, screech and bark like the rest of our fellow primates do?
You have to remember if you consider the beautiful dumb blond in a movie sexy her intelligence is still within the "human range." If it were not it would cease to be "attractive." That's what secondary sexual characteristics-like the giant tail on a peacock -do, they "attract."

(snatchbalance) These factors would seem to make intelligence a survival trait in and of itself; not primarily a sexual attractant.(He/she would have to be intelligent enough to survive and gain social status.)
(S) That's what we used to think. But we were putting the cart before the horse. The large sized brain isn't used by any other animal as a survival tactic. Plus the over-sized head of the babies kills more than it's share of newborns and mothers.
The mistake we were making, and you are making now, was that we were comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges.
The janitor with the 90 IQ has six kids and the Professor with the 140 IQ can't get a date. Both these guys are "apples," both well within human standards.
Compare the janitor with Zippy the "pin-head" whose small brain is outside the normal human range just slightly. But on the high end of our nearest relative the chimp.
Then you see how the over-sized human head is attractive to you while the normal primate sized one is not.

(snatchbalance) Also, next generation alphas, normally come from the beta ranks.
(S) Betas can rise to be Alphas. It happens all the time, when they develop the abilities of an Alpha.
The problem is with Betas who are pseudo-Alphas. They get all of the benefits that come with being an Alpha-but they cannot deliver the services of an Alpha to the troop. It is the troop that suffers from this deception not the deceiver.

(snatchbalance) I think there is real pressure to be a real alpha, as opposed to a pseudo alpha.
(S) Exactly.
Think of it in human terms. The pseudo-Alpha, the Minister, "saves you" from the fires of Hell by sprinkling a little holy water on your head.
The true-Alpha, the Fireman, actually saves you from real flames by putting his own life in jeopardy and spraying a lot of water on you.
They both get money and admiration for what they do. But one is a fake.

Jobar

Dr. S, I do not see how religion could be said to exist before language. I think that questions, and tales to answer those questions, are the ultimate root of religion. Perhaps the social structure of homonids is a facilitating factor in the evolution of religion (in fact I would say almost certainly so) but AFAIK there are no observations of anything we could call 'religion' in any of the higher apes bar man. (Are you aware of any such?)

And although this is not the proper forum to address the question- our Evolution/Creationism section is the right place for it- I must strongly disagree that intelligence is a sexual characteristic. I would say it is definitely a survival trait which leads the individuals possessing it to acquire sexual advantages- that is, the sexual advantages are secondary instead of primary. The tail of the peacock, the colors of a mandrill, are a burden to the creature possessing them- intelligence is *not* a burden, far from it!

snatchbalance

DrS,

yes, but to continue to compare apples and apples, I think your contention would only stand if there were a correlation between head size and intelligence. In other words, having a head size that is humanly proportional to the body, may be sexually atractive; but, there is no way for a potetial mate to assess intelligence based on head size, afaik.

Have more to say, but must go.

sb

Dr S

(Jobar ) I do not see how religion could be said to exist before language. I think that questions, and tales to answer those questions, are the ultimate root of religion.
(S) That's the point I'm trying to make. The tales and questions are only window dressing. What a slight of hand magician would call "the art of misdirection." Look at my empty left hand while I pretend to pull the quarter, that is palmed in my right, out of your ear.
All you need for the "ultimate root" of religion is fear. In this case fear of the dark and the predators that hunt in it. Evolved as a very useful animal behavior for self preservation.
And the ability to lie. Something we know chimps and gorillas are capable of. Add to that motivation of enhanced social status.
There you have it, motive, ability and opportunity. If I was a detective I'd be ready to slap the cuffs on these big apes and take them downtown.

(J) Perhaps the social structure of homonids is a facilitating factor in the evolution of religion (in fact I would say almost certainly so) but AFAIK there are no observations of anything we could call 'religion' in any of the higher apes bar man. (Are you aware of any such?)
(S) Yes. The incident I mentioned in the opening section. I'm talking about the root of religion here. I'm not claiming that chimps have a College of Chimpanzee Cardinals. An artificially produced fright followed by comforting (salvation) in this case social grooming and food that benefits the deceiver (in this Jane Goodall story, Frodo). These actions are religion at it's most basic.
As an aside it was noticed back in the teens that chimps have ceremonies. It doesn't matter where they are--the ones in Atlanta do this most days-if chimps are in a group a dance will start. All the chimps join in and do a little bow legged two step around a pole or sapling. No one is yet quite sure about what's going on when that happens.

(J) I must strongly disagree that intelligence is a sexual characteristic. I would say it is definitely a survival trait…
(S) Most people used to think that. And it does enhance your survival chances, but it now appears that that is just a bonus we received from it, like mathematics.
(J) …sexual advantages are secondary instead of primary.
(S) If that were true it would make us the only species it was true for.

(J)The tail of the peacock, the colors of a mandrill, are a burden to the creature possessing them- intelligence is *not* a burden, far from it!
(S) I take it then that you have never given birth to a human baby. (or sat through a Mensa meeting )
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(snatchbalance ) I think your contention would only stand if there were a correlation between head size and intelligence.
(S) It does directly correlate. (size matters) Bonobos (we used to call them pygmy chimps) are our nearest relation as a species. Their heads, and therefore their brains, are a fraction the size of ours. It is physically impossible for a bonobo to be as intelligent as a human because of the size of their brain.

(snatchbalance ) In other words, having a head size that is humanly proportional to the body, may be sexually atractive;
(S) That's the point!! "humanly" proportional. Humans have giant heads in proportion to their bodies if you measure them by the standards of all the other primates. If you measure them by human standards they are very nice-attractive.
Measure a peacocks tail by peacock standards and they are just right and very attractive. Measure them by general bird standards and they are huge-way out of proportion.

The huge tail and the huge head are both huge for the same reason-attract the opposite sex and pass your genes on. Any other benefit you might get from it is just icing on the cake.

(snatchbalance ) there is no way for a potetial mate to assess intelligence based on head size.
(S) So you are saying that you would like to go on a date with someone whose head is proportional to their body by primate standards? That would be about half the size you normally find on a human. I'm not talking wearing an "S" hat as opposed to an "XL." I'm talking half the "normal" (to us) size.

snatchbalance

DrS,

I'm tryingto stick to humans. I'm trying to avoid the comparison between humans and other primates.

Maybe I'm missing a nuance.

Anyway, no, I probably wouldn't go on a date with a woman who's head was half the size of a normal human's.(although, come to think of it, some of the women I've dated have reminded me of chimps, but I digress.) However, I would maintain that it would be very difficult for me to judge her intelligence based on the size of her head(assuming that it's size was within the human norm).

So, again, I think, head size and intelligence are not correllated, except, at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

By the way, I wear a size XXL hat. I'm not deluded enough to think that my intelligence correlates with my hat size.

Anyway, again, we digress from the subject at hand; are human betas responsible for the phenomenon of religion as w know it? I find it an interesting contention.

sb

Dr S

(snatchbalance ) I'm trying to avoid the comparison between humans and other primates.
Maybe I'm missing a nuance.
(S) The nuance would be that when I'm talking about religion and early humans I'm not talking about cavemen. I'm talkin' early. Human ancestors who would be distinguishable from present day chimps only by their longer, straighter, legs.

(snatchbalance ) very difficult for me to judge her intelligence based on the size of her head(assuming that it's size was within the human norm).
(S) Because it would be in the normal range of human intelligence. And you would find that attractive-because it is a sexual attraction for our species.

(snatchbalance ) So, again, I think, head size and intelligence are not correllated, except, at the extreme ends of the spectrum.
(S) Which is what I'm talking about. Just like with birds a peacock's tail is at the extreme end of the spectrum. It is that extreme that they find attractive. Tests have been done clipping off parts of the tail. If their tail is normal sized for a bird-say a crow-no pea-hen will mate with them. Therefore we know that the oversized tail is a sexual attraction.
People's heads, and therefore their brains, are at the extreme end of the spectrum for apes. And we are, for all our pretense, just another species of ape. The third chimpanzee.

(snatchbalance ) Anyway, again, we digress from the subject at hand; are human betas responsible for the phenomenon of religion as we know it?
(S) Yes, see my analogy of Ministers and Firemen above.
These Betas present an artificial danger. In the present day, Hell and damnation. There is no way for you to know that you are in any danger until they tell you. Then they make all sorts of claims that they have saved you from the danger and reap the social and monetary rewards that a real Alpha who saved you from real danger is due.
Of course these Pseudo -alphas can't do diddley about real danger (they are only pseudo-fake-heroes) so when real danger hits-say a plague or the WTC- they blame not themselves or their god which is only an extension of themselves but the victims. The victims of the disaster in turn try to please the god by giving more benefits to the Pseudo-alpha.
All because we have a fear built into us and a love of Alphas built in as survival behaviors.
The person who cries out that they love Jesus is doing nothing more than expressing basic ape affection for the silverback.

It's more complicated with us than it is with chimps, which is what you would expect with brain mass and all, but basically it's the same as banging the empty tin can around Goodall's camp.

Jobar

Dr. S, I'm certainly not disputing that the ability to lie is one of the foundations of human religion- or, to put a kinder face on it, the ability to tell tall tales. But I don't agree that the *only* roots of religion are fear and lies. You leave out awe- the fascination of such natural phenomena as lightning, or rain, or a beautiful sunrise. Your example of leopards as ur-demons seems handicapped by the fact that early (pre-verbal) humans were familiar with leopards- they were completely aware of them as one of the natural (and avoidable) hazards of the world. Leopards could be seen, smelled, and fought against. Lightning, on the other hand, is completely unexplainable until electrical theory is discovered. Its suddenness, its arbitrariness, its terrible power- of course there is no way to actually prove it (at least that I can see) but I think that the very first god was probably a lightning god.

And please, I will not continue to discuss, here, your contention that intelligence is primarily a sexual characteristic- but I do urge you to start a thread in E/C (linked to this one) concerning the driving force behind intelligence increase. I'm very interested in what our resident experts will have to say. I make no claim to expertise in evolutionary anthropology, but I will say that I have never seen your idea before.

snatchbalance

DrS,

Been thinking about your idea; have a couple of questions and comments:

1. I guess you are saying that our hominid ancestors had "religion" prior to developing language capabilities, that we would recognise as such?

2. Would there have been survival merit in developing a protected class of "intellectuals"?

3. Could such "intellectuals" have really been an asset to the group, as opposed to exploiting the group?

4. Prior to the, ever widening, cultural seperation between secular and religious leaders, could not such "priest/intellectuals" have played a real and vital role in the group dynamics?

5. Could this not have been a precursor to the common human phenomenon of the intelligent, as opposed to physical, taking leadership roles?

6. Why would such roles be reserved(predominately) for those that are both intellgent and experienced? Are such traits, in and of themselves, worth preserving? Creating a preistly cast may hae been one way of doing it.

SB