good guys finish last

[Sloppy Zhang]

Alright.. I shouldn't say abusive. My bad.

 

BUt as said by Marnia in Cupid's Poisoned Arrow: by nature we are hardwired to be non-committing. At least that is our first instinct or was the first instinct to develop. That mean's firstly there's no such thing as fidelity. Bonding behavior come 2nd but in attraction usually it's the first thing that matters: if a guy shows more the behavior of a person who does not want commitment.

 

Because according to nature it's more about quantity vs quality, and it prefers quantity first. Well, according to popular science anyways.

 

WE are hardwired also to form bonds but this supposedly comes 2nd. Taking the view that we are a developing Universe and that "Love" is a fairly new concept at least here on Earth, I'd say that is true.

 

I don't know this person or their research, but I would highly question her statement. Human survival has ALWAYS relied on bonds.

 

Human babies have to be taken care of far longer than many other babies from many animal species (some of whom are preyed upon by their own parents!)

 

On top of that, even fully grown humans rarely have the ability to fend for themselves. Even in our modern society, we see this with division of labor.

 

It all relies on the bonds we feel with our fellow human beings, and the understanding that if someone stops doing something, the whole system falls apart.

 

The problem stems from the fact that so many people use facets of life to try and resolve or play out all of their mental traumas- relationships are about validating someone's existence, having a baby is about making sure he won't leave you, getting a promotion is about proving to the girl who dumped you in 9th grade that you aren't a loser who was too poor to afford a car, becoming a priest because you just never fit in anywhere else, etc.

 

Suddenly, doing something which could be inherently HELPFUL, for the wrong reasons, becomes DANGEROUS.

 

It's not that having children, for instance, is wrong. What IS wrong and destructive is attempting to leverage that child in your relationship.

 

Nothing is wrong with getting more money. What IS wrong and destructive is trying to prove yourself to someone who hasn't been in your life (and if you aren't famous, isn't even aware of you existence) for 20 years!

 

See what I'm saying?

 

Don't blame the external manifestation of an issue- go to the root!

 

I can see why, if you just look at recent divorce rates and things like that, that you might think "obviously people don't rely on bonds!" But look at how many of them relied on friends or family after the fact? How many of them relied on a team of people to help them get a job done? The sheer amount of effort and coordination done to publish a book, or do even a minuscule amount of research!

 

You might begin to argue that not all of them have the most altruistic motivations. But you can't argue that they don't have some kind of common "bond".

Edited April 28, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Non]

I don't know this person or their research, but I would highly question her statement. Human survival has ALWAYS relied on bonds.

 

Human babies have to be taken care of far longer than many other babies from many animal species (some of whom are preyed upon by their own parents!)

 

On top of that, even fully grown humans rarely have the ability to fend for themselves. Even in our modern society, we see this with division of labor.

 

It all relies on the bonds we feel with our fellow human beings, and the understanding that if someone stops doing something, the whole system falls apart.

 

The problem stems from the fact that so many people use facets of life to try and resolve or play out all of their mental traumas- relationships are about validating someone's existence, having a baby is about making sure he won't leave you, getting a promotion is about proving to the girl who dumped you in 9th grade that you aren't a loser who was too poor to afford a car, becoming a priest because you just never fit in anywhere else, etc.

 

Suddenly, doing something which could be inherently HELPFUL, for the wrong reasons, becomes DANGEROUS.

 

It's not that having children, for instance, is wrong. What IS wrong and destructive is attempting to leverage that child in your relationship.

 

Nothing is wrong with getting more money. What IS wrong and destructive is trying to prove yourself to someone who hasn't been in your life (and if you aren't famous, isn't even aware of you existence) for 20 years!

 

See what I'm saying?

 

Don't blame the external manifestation of an issue- go to the root!

 

I can see why, if you just look at recent divorce rates and things like that, that you might think "obviously people don't rely on bonds!" But look at how many of them relied on friends or family after the fact? How many of them relied on a team of people to help them get a job done? The sheer amount of effort and coordination done to publish a book, or do even a minuscule amount of research!

 

You might begin to argue that not all of them have the most altruistic motivations. But you can't argue that they don't have some kind of common "bond".

 

 

WEll I know.. it's obvious that our society does not value bonds all that much.

 

ALso.. the reptilian brain is the oldest brain we have.

[Sloppy Zhang]

WEll I know.. it's obvious that our society does not value bonds all that much.

 

And how did you conclude that?

 

Do you really think that people don't rely on family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and others to not only survive, but thrive?

 

Like I said- anyone can look at a divorce rate and unilaterally conclude that society does not value bonds- but it would be a shallow and shortsighted analysis.

 

The very existence of this forum is maintained by the bonds between its members!

[stan herman]

 

In this world it's pretty much be bad-ass or die off. Most of the time.

 

 

You say "most of the time". What are the exceptions like?

 

Btw, seems to me if you prefer a fate of doom, fight for it, even if you have to be a "good guy".

s