yea, it should state maximum survivability of specie by genetic similarity - or something like that

I'm pretty sure we want to maximum survability of individuals but since this is impossible we fall to the closes option - maximum survivability of genetic relatives - weighted by closeness - offspring, wife, siblings, first relatives, second etc....

Something like that sounds right but what we want has precious litle to do with it in general.

There may be special solutions where maximum survivablity of individuals coincides with maximum survivability of the group but I suspect they are rare and unstable. Dont know though, interesting to think about.

It is a bit of a difficulty and there are no hard lines, but we distinguish between character and mood; present situation and the net total of all former formative situations.

We make these distinctions because they work fairly well and there is rarely any better data available. Those of us who are reasonable largely use an iterative process to make the distinctions finer as more data comes in.

Stubbing your toe causing you to act unpleasant for a bit is somewhat different (and importantly so) than you acting generally unpleasant because of the net total of your character.

That the living beings who take care of their offspring and close relatives happen to be in abundance was inevitable but the genes that caused such things to happen were (and are) completely indifferent to the results.

Your genes couldn't care less. Small, but important, mistake to think otherwise. No different than thinking that the sun is big and in the center of the solar system because it was peckish.

I understand that; what survives gets to survive and nothing else

I was saying that since this strategy survived (genetic similarity) vs individual maximum survivability it is currently dominant but the underlying mechanism is still simply maximum survivability and people want to live as long as they can* (ask granny why she is spending all the time in the hospital just to live 5 more years)

*on avg.

The desire for us to maximise individual survivability (I'm allowing that even though its not quite right) is a trait that we have because it is fit to our genes in the same way that enjoying sex is.

The trait once it exists isn't closely bound to the cause for its existence in the first place and its quite possible that excessive pursuit of individual survivability can extremely bad for the genes, it may even make extinction far more likely.

Granny in your example doesn't sound like an optimal strategy for the genepool, may well be better for the genes if we didn't waste resources on such things then again maybe not who knows?. We're not advocating shooting old grannies because we dont care very much about whats best for the genes - the sequal to The selfish gene should be called The tragedy of the genes followed a long time later by Revenge of the genes.

pretty much agree...

Sorry to interrupt, but:

forumserver.twoplustwo.com/55/about-forums/atf-chatroom-o-t-chat-1494/index135.html#post40530767

Because I'm not a dogmatist, absolute total abstinence should have some motivation more than a belief system. My dependence on alcohol isn't in the end strong enough for warranting teetotaliarism for health/social reasons.

Meet the semi-teetotaler

I mostly agree with the first response you got. You have to try to be honest with yourself as to whether you had a dependency problem or were just drinking too much. If the former then you're most likely kidding yourself now and its a good reason to abstain.

Good analysis. To make it more challenging I would say it's somewhere between those two. Clearly there's a dependency problem, I have to fight it, but have indications it's not very much stronger than other dependencies we have in life. I definitely was drinking too much, came up to about 14 shots a week, bad in many ways, not affecting the job though on a short term basis, but was unsustainable, had to be dealt with. It was unsatisfactory, either had to increase the use or quit. The quitting for three weeks was a good wake up.

I think I may fight this by buying one miniature (50ml) about three times a week. Would call it "advanced psychology": with absolute total abstinence alcohol would keep a status of "forbidden fruit", that maybe would haunt more than necessary in my case.

In the end you should develop countermeasures that are proportioned correctly according to the threat, maybe eternal total absolute abstinence isn't the right alternative for me, even if that idea carried me through the three weeks totally without alcohol, helping break the habit.

A genetic variant predisposes people to perceive events more negatively than others.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early...92423.abstract

http://www.popsci.com/article/scienc...-sourpuss-gene

hmmmm.......

How big an effect was it? Can't open the full text.

Interesting though that specific genes are getting linked to emotional/psychological traits.

sry, me neither....

I just like to surf the psychological stuff here and there, not worth the subscription....

They've been looking at this stuff for a while. 5-HTTLPR is another one.

It is super creepy when you find out that someone you cared for and lost touch with long ago has passed away.

Yes, and it will happen more and more as we get older. In our age it's often a tragedy. My mother recently used the words: "They are dying like flies". She can't open a newspaper without seeing someone she's known who's passed away. Probably you get partly used even to that.

Machete Kills. Elon Musk had a cameo.

I think that you can learn a lot about a person by knowing whether they find "Breakfast of Champions" to be a good book or not.

It will be required reading in the harem cult communal living arrangements and those that don't make the correct facial expressions will be held accountable.

I find it mildly intriguing that I just made the following post in The Lounge Forum, in the "What Books are you Reading Tonight Thread". A copy and paste of the post is presented below:

_____________________________________________

How much is read is obviously (or should be) not as important as the quality of material consumed and digested. Sponging up oceans of drivel that clog the mind with metaphysical banshees, hackneyed vomit, and volumes of spittle is only conducive to those ego –inflamed personalities characteristic of deluded souls and pedantic pundits of the puerile*.

In days of yore, The Bible sufficed as the dictionary for the cosmos, supplemented by a few off-color Geek and Roman (or Shakespearian) comic plays and tragedies, and the world marched on to the beating drums of ignorance, superstition, bad jokes, and worse life choices. Stuck in this swirling, festering cesspit of swill, everyone was happy and lived well.

Today it is exactly the same – only now, everyone is supposedly well read.

Juvenal could have field day with this material.

*Registered Trademark of Zeno World Domination Enterprises.

_________________________________________


Indulge yourself in any response that seems to fit.

Puerile is a nice word.

Must not one wade through the quantity to get to the quality, though?

Not necessarily. Though I admit it is both an art and science to hover over the festering cesspit without contaminating one's self. I have done it; you should be able to also. Oscar Wilde, no doubt, said something spiffy about this but I can't recall it right now. Or was that about The Decay of Lying?

.....and very useful.

He said that the vulgarity of reading too much is exceeded only by that of reading too little. In conversation with Marie Lloyd and Whistler over tea at Fortnum's, I believe.

So an average of 2 shots per day has you worried...