Miscellaneous content from the original enlightened caveman. Some serious, some not. Take your chances.

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

My Politics

As this site is ultimately dedicated to exploring the Enlightened Caveman concept in the context of current affairs, it makes sense at this point to articulate my political leanings.

Let me begin by saying that, if I must be labeled, I come closest to being a libertarian. This simply means that, philosophically speaking, I am socially liberal and economically conservative. More importantly, I believe that the state should play a VERY limited role in the lives of the people. This, unfortunately, is far from what we have today...and there is a very serious (and sad) reason for it.

We are at a point in this country where the dominant skill of all successful elected officials is the ability to get elected. By giving a politician our vote, we are choosing to have them represent us in matters of public policy. I don't think people really get this. If someone is going to represent me, I want them to be steeped in economic and political philosophy. I want them to have clearly articulated positions on these matters, and I want to be sure that their beliefs are well thought out. Most importantly, I want to know that they will fight for those beliefs even when they are unpopular. Apparently, that is too much to ask.

The reality is that those who run for public office are rarely the kind of people we would want at our dinner tables. To them, truth is a matter of convenience, to be invoked when it poses no risk to their electibability. More often, the truth is distorted opportunistically to achieve whatever means necessary to obtain and retain political power. This is quite contrary to my ethics, which means that I have very little admiration for politicians, regardless of their party affiliations.

George Bush comes from a family of career politicians. They are bred to win elections. I don't think for a moment that W is the good, upstanding, moral guy that his supporters say he is. They cite his commitment to the war on terror as evidence of this. I disagree. I'm not saying he doesn't care about national security. I believe he does, and I believe he truly believes that our current efforts are the way to ensure it. However, I think it is much more likely that his success (he will be reelected, you can count on it) is nothing more than a calculated risk. He knows that there are more people out there who want to see action against those who attacked us than there are people who want to leave it to the UN or do nothing at all. So, though they say he has staked his presidency on Iraq, I don't think he sees it as that much of a risk, especially when you consider all of the other things he has done to garner votes.

The Medicare presription drug benefit is absolutely contrary to the idea of smaller government, which is supposed to be a main component of the Republican platform. Yet, Bush supported it. Why? Cause he cares about grandma? Doubtful. He did it for votes. Amnesty for illegal aliens? Same thing. It is a fact that government spending during his first three years in office has grown at the highest rate in history. Is that his idea of smaller government? Not a chance. It's what you can call hedging your bets. And this is the guy with core values? Sure.

And Kerry? This guy is a walking definition of political opportunism. Now he wants to raise the minimum wage, and he is so transparent that he comes right out and says it will benefit single mothers the most. Translation - I'm buying your votes, single moms. And his values? It's clear that he values one thing - getting elected. He campaigned during the primaries as a far left winger. He had no choice - Dean set the agenda early on and made it clear that getting the democratic nomination would entail singing some variety of his tune. But now that Kerry has it, he is moving ever so cleverly to the center. This is because getting a majority of democrats to vote for you is one thing - getting a majority of Americans to vote for you is another thing altogether.

The point of all this is to establish a theme in my future posts. ENOUGH OF THE LEFT VERSUS RIGHT CRAP. This is the caveman team mentality writ large. Take a moment to see beyond taking sides and realize that if you must choose a side, the teams you have to choose from are not Republicans versus Democrats. It is us, the people of this country, against the losers who running it. It doesn't matter if they're Republicans or Democrats. They want the same thing - power - and they'll do anything and say anything to get it. That means we have to hold them accountable in a different way. We have to demand honesty and integrity. We have to demand that they state what they believe and why, and that they stick to their guns. If they lose an election because the majority doesn't agree with them, so be it. Those kinds of people are called statesmen. I want to be represented by a statesman. You should, too.

Saturday, June 19, 2004

Truth and the Caveman Mind

If we're going to reject the team mentality and the herd mentality to come to opinions and beliefs that make sense, we're going to have to make sure we know how to find truth. This, it turns out, is not exactly easy for the caveman mind. Our emotions push us to buy into all sorts of ideas that make absolutely no sense.

The first step is realizing that certainty is a fantasy. Francis Bacon once said, "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." I'd say he's mostly right. However, even when we think we're certain, we must ALWAYS recognize that we may be wrong. That means that we have to be stingy with our beliefs. We have to be skeptical. Unless we have a good reason to believe something, we are best served if we consider the matter unresolved until such time as things change.

This leads us to the question of how we pursue truth if we can't ever be certain. The easy answer is evidence. However, not necessarily positive evidence. The approach to take is to determine all of the possible explanations for an idea. For example, if we want to know if the minimum wage is helpful to society, we must consider two main hypotheses - either it is or it isn't. Then we look at all of the evidence against each hypothesis. The idea that the minimum wage is good for society is refuted by consistent statistics that indicate that high minimum wages lead to high unemployment. Therefore, though some may make a little more, more are out of work. The idea that the minimum is not good for society, on the other hand, has very little to refute it. Therefore, though we recognize that we can't be certain, we can feel comfortable choosing the latter hypothesis.

This is called Critical Rationalism, and it is the very basis of the scientific method. Scientists put forth hypotheses and then spend their time trying to disprove them. Those that stand up to experiments make their way into theories. Those that do not are rejected (and they usually lead to more hypotheses). This is how man's knowledge moves forward. We must use the same approach when considering all issues. Even though most of us lack the capability to test all ideas we encounter, we can do a little research to figure out where we stand.

The key is to be willing to say we don't know. If there isn't enough evidence either way, it is better to withhold judgement. For example, many people are certain that Michael Jackson is a pedophile. While the evidence we encounter in the news seems to point to his guilt, those of us who have never met him really don't know. We're therefore best served if we withhold opinion on the matter.

What makes this hard is the caveman tendency to take sides based upon group affiliation. We saw this most starkly with the OJ trial. Blacks overwhelmingly believed he was innocent, and whites overwhelmingly believed he was guilty. The only way to approach something like this is in a critically rational way. We must have the courage to reject our emotional leanings and look objectively at the evidence. It's the only way.

The Ethical Caveman

We don't have to reject our humanity to make progress these days. Yes, our caveman tendencies are causing us problems. However, we can retune them to work for us, rather than against us. One way in particular is to adopt a set of fixed ethics as the core of our value system.

Our comparative analysis tendencies are genetic so we're hard pressed to do away with them. But we can teach ourselves to compare ourselves to what we can think of as an ideal person. For example, we may decide that an ideal person is one who is kind and honest, one who is fair and open-minded, and one who is respectful of all people. When we do, we have adopted those characteristics as our ethics. Then, we simply compare ourselves to those on a day-to-day basis. It's amazing how powerful this concept is.

Right away, we are free from the desire for social acceptability. It is a fact that being popular does not in any way indicate being ethical. We all know of dispicable people who are embraced by society. When we strive to live according to our ethics, we end up internalizing very little in life. The reality of our world is that the opinions of most people don't matter at all. They are their issue, not ours. When we rationally determine what it means to be a good person, we can hold our heads high as walk through life trying to live up to our ideals. If our contemporaries don't share our values, so be it. Who cares?

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Artifacts of the Caveman Mind

Now that you know the background behind the Enlightened Caveman concept, it's time to see how the ancient design of the human mind translates into behavioral tendencies that are pervasive in our society. I call these the artifacts of the caveman mind. The enlightened caveman has disposed of their influences. The result is an entirely new and comforting view of life in our modern world.

1. In-group prejudice. We naturally sort people into groups – those who are like us and those who are not. Those who are members of our in-group are given irrational and often unjustified prejudicial treatment. This is what I call the team mentality. Our innate desire to be a part of a group has interesting implications in today's world. In contrast to how things worked for our cavedwelling ancestors, we now have the luxury of choosing our team. This is most obvious in politics and sports. It is my view that most people choose their political leanings and favorite sporting teams by siding with the people they get along with. The merits of political views take a backseat to the team mentality. The same is basically true with respect to how people choose their favorite sports teams. Why else would anyone be a Cubs fan:-) However, with sports, this is not an issue. With politics, it is a major problem, one that I'll elaborate on later.

2. Comparative Analysis. We naturally compare ourselves to our contemporaries and base our self-opinions on the results of those measurements. This has its roots in man's quest for status. If our neighbors seem more successful than we (by society's standards), it is common for us to internalize this and end up feeling bad about ourselves. This is a mistake. Our self-esteem must be based upon ethics and ethics alone.

3. The Herd Mentality. We naturally gravitate toward beliefs and actions that are held and taken by the majority. This is a consequence of pursuing group acceptance. Once again, ideas and opinions are embraced without regard for their merits. This is a major problem.

4. High Status Admiration. Those who receive the most attention in society are irrationally admired and emulated. In caveman times, one would emulate high status members of the group in order to obtain status for him or her self. But in those days, there weren't many ways to get status - they were all tied to survival and reproductive skills. Today, status is more a function of attention. Those who can best distract individuals from their daily lives are unconsciously perceived as the high status members of society. The caveman emulation mechanisms take over and voila, we're comparing ourselves to popular people and basing our self-esteem on how we stack up. This is perhaps the greatest source of feelings of insecurity and inadequacy in our world. Furthermore, this causes us to adopt twisted value systems such as materialism. It also prevents people from pursuing their talents and interests if they don't fall into the realm of social acceptabilty. The fact is that being popular is absolutely irrelevant to our self-esteem. Are we ethical people? That's what matters.

5. Authority-based Indoctrination. We are naturally inclined to irrationally accept and embrace the beliefs and attitudes of individuals we perceive as authority figures. This is also tied to the quest for status. In today's world, we must reject this approach and consider ideas and attitudes rationally, based upon their merit and nothing more. If this means we end up at odds with authority figures, so be it. This is how mankind advances. It has always been so.

6. Focus on Looks. We are naturally driven to evaluate ourselves and others in terms of outward appearance. It is a fact that attractive people have it easier than unattractive people when it comes to job opportunities, friendships, and romantic relationships. This tied to our natural assessment of fitness - we subconcsiously connect tallness, muscle tone, a lean physique, symmetrical features, a full head of hair, and shiny teeth to being reproductively fit. The thing is that nowadays, these kinds of things really don't matter. It is the content of one's character that matters now. Of course, given the fact that most people are not yet likely to be hip to this idea, it isn't necessarily bad to compare ourselves to others with respect to our looks. However, we have to be careful with what we do with these assessments. We needn't feel bad about ourselves. We must simply accept the reality of how our looks impact our opportunities in life. Average-looking and not so attractive people often have to bring other qualities to the game if they want to achieve their goals. And when it comes to evaluating other people, we have to endeavor to take looks out of the equation. It's that simple.

Before anyone gets steamed at me about these gross generalizations, let me just say this. I am well aware that many people do not fall prey to these caveman tendencies. For whatever reason, they have figured out that these approaches to life don't really bear fruit. Nevertheless, these artifacts of the caveman mind are everywhere. If they don't apply to you, it is still worthwhile to note their existence in the people all around you. (You'll be surprised at how rarely you're surprised by your fellow man.) In fact, these artifacts are the source of most of our social problems. I will refer to them again and again as time goes on.

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

A Little Background

To get a handle on this line of thinking, you have to understand a bit of evolutionary psychology. This is the relatively new discipline that applies evolutionary theory to the science of the mind. Robert Wright's bestseller The Moral Animal (1994) was the first book to bring it to the attention of the masses. The idea that concerns us here is the notion that natural selection made its last significant changes to the human mind somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 years ago. At that time, humans were nomads living in small groups with close kin. Life was challenging, to say the least. The humans that were still around when mankind conquered his environment and placed natural selection on the sidelines are our ancestors. Their genes have been mixed and matched over the millenia to give us the population of humans on the earth today. It turns out that their minds had some very important adaptations that are still with us today.

For starters, they were genetically programmed to cooperate with one another. With life and death hanging in the balance on a day to day basis, the ones who banded together fared better than the loners. They were the fittest, which is why they survived. Genes that led to behaviors that promoted cooperation flourished. The other major adaptation has to do with the quest for status. With limited resources available, humans in ancestral times fell into heirarchies, much like chickens fall into what is known as a pecking order. The ones on top got their pick of the food, shelter, and mates. The ones on bottom missed out and died off. Therefore, humans developed the tendency to recognize their place in the heirarchy and to do whatever it took to move up. These two adaptations produced a host of human emotions, and it those emotions that influence much of how we interpret and react to the world today, even though it bears no resemblance to the environment of our ancestors.

Emotions are the connection between our genes and our behavior. Not always, of course, but a lot more than we would expect. We are certainly not robots driven entirely by our genes. However, the emotions that have their basis in our DNA are at work every day of our lives, coloring how we deal with everything. The emotions that come from cooperation are the feelings of friendship, gratitude, anger, sympathy, and loyalty. The emotions that come from the quest for status include admiration, envy, and resentment. We feel these emotions today because they were the key to survival for our ancestors.

In caveman times, humans did not have the cognitive ability to conceive of the value of cooperating. Their genes simply programmed them to experience emotions that led to cooperative behaviors. For example, one who does a favor for another should expect that favor to be returned. Over time, individuals who repaid favors were met with feelings of friendship. This was nature's version of a good credit history, so to speak. Individuals who did not return favors were met with anger. In this way, man's emotions led him to participate in mutually beneficial, or in scientific terms, reciprocally altruistic relationships. Gratitude was felt when one was in debt, prompting him to repay his benefactor. Loyalty was an extension of friendship - humans looked out for those who always repaid favors, knowing that there was nothing to lose. Sympathy was man's version of bargain hunting. When a guy was down on his luck, a few scraps of meat could mean the difference between life and death. The sympathetic caveman could then expect the meat to be repaid at a profit. Nature is quite shrewd sometimes. This is definitely true with respect to status.

Envy kept the caveman in pursuit a higher place on the tribal totem pole. By wanting what the high status individuals had, one would take actions that would lead him to obtain it. And though he may have been jealous of those high status individuals, he was likely to have admired them. This would keep him close enough to them to learn what it was they did to get to the top. Resentment, on the other hand, served to knock the high status individuals off the hill. Resentment prompted individuals to take actions that would reduce the status of the leaders, thereby elevating their own. It is amazing to imagine cavemen cooperating and angling for status simply by following their genetically-driven emotional drives, but that, according to evolutionary psychologists, is exactly what they did. The problem is that these emotions are still a major part of our mental machinery. They are the reason why we humans are much more alike than we are different, and they are the reason we can't seem to solve so many of the problems in our world.

The Pen (or keyboard, in this case) is Mightier Than The Gene

As the opening post to this blog, I thought I'd take a moment to describe the setting of this human drama. Here we are in the most prosperous time in the history of our species. The information age is upon us. We are instantly aware of events that transpire on the other side of the globe. We can travel inexpensively to most anywhere and stick a little plastic card in a machine that spits out money - in the right currency, at any time of day. Buildings that rise well beyond the clouds can be financed, designed, and constructed in years that can be counted on one hand. Here in America, food is abundant, cheap, and available at nearly any street corner (even if it isn't always good for us). The days of back-breaking labor are behind most all wage earners - especially the ones reading this. Yes, life today is light years beyond the dreams of our forefathers. Yet, many of the problems that have plagued mankind are still with us, in full force.

There is still far too much hate and intolerance in this world. There is still far too much insecurity and self-loathing in the minds of men (and women, lest my literary tendencies offend). There is still far too much jealousy and pettiness in human interaction. Group think is as strong as ever. The us against them mentality still reigns supreme in virtually all human endeavors. Ignorance and superstition are still paramount among the masses. How could this be? How could we have come so far as a species and yet the words of Plato and Shakespeare still ring as true today as they did when they first fell upon man's ears?

Should we not expect that our technological and societal advances would have rendered the words of the great bard and earlier philosophers anachronistic and altogether foreign? After all, they had no Internet. They had no ATMs or drive-thru windows or cell phones or Wal-Marts. In earlier centuries, death was an accepted part of everyday life. Here I am at the age of 33 and I have never lost anyone close to me. This is truly curious. How is it that the great thinkers of the past had such lasting insights into arc of human existence? Though we are adorned much more extravagantly these days, the only possible explanation is that something must be transcending our cultural advances. That something is our genes.

When we examine this curiosity against the backdrop of natural selection, we quickly realize that humanity has remained largely unchanged behaviorally because our genes have not changed to any significant degree for tens of thousands of years. We have the minds of cavemen, which brings me to the point of this blog.

If we are to take the next step as a species, if we are to render the words of Shakespeare historical rather than prescient, then we must understand what it is our genes are up to and take active steps to place the bad ones on the sidelines...for good. Of course, this is a figurative idea. I do not mean to suggest that we will go in and excise those genes that don't meet with our approval. The idea is that we must understand that our minds are built by our genes, and that our genes evolved in an environment that does not exist today. That environment promoted the aspects of our nature that have been captured so brilliantly by our philosophers and literary leaders, and many of those aspects are in dire need of an overhaul. But this is not a bad news story.

We have a long history of taming our genes. Birth control, monogamy, the rule of law, capitalism, and gene therapy are all examples of mankind overruling genetic influences in favor the conscious desires of human beings. We can, and must, do the same thing with respect to many of our caveman proclivities. This blog is dedicated to exploring this concept. I have written a book on the subject (see the link to "in print" above for more info on it), but it occurs to me that current events offer excellent opportunities to point out where our ancient minds are doing us harm, and more importantly, to point out what it takes to fix things. If we are successful in transitioning to the next era of Homo sapiens, we will not recognize the human characters in the writings of Shakespeare and Plato centuries from now. Let's get on with it...