Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Is Conformity necessary for evolution?

17:26 / 05.07.01

This interview with Richard Dawkins -

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=81771

-raises some very interesting questions.

Darwinians ask meaningful "why" questions, he says. Those that ask "why is this leaf this particular shape?" or "why does this animal walk like this?". What about, "why are humans so credulous?" I ask. So happy to pay through the nose for an aura massage or crystal healing. Mustn't gullibility have an evolutionary explanation too?
"I would put it back to childhood and say that there's a Darwinian survival value in children believing what their elders tell them, because the world is too dangerous a place and it takes too long to learn what you need to learn to survive," Dawkins replies. "You've got to have a rule of thumb that's built into the nervous system that says 'Believe what you're told'. And once you've got a rule of thumb like that, it's like having a computer, which is vulnerable to viruses. A good computer will run whatever programme you stick in it, whether it's beneficial or not."

What do you think? Do we believe what we're told because it's a necessary evolutionary trait? And if so, what happens when we stop believing what we're told?

ps; Thanks to Link Machine Go for setting me off on this one...

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: JB ]

18:00 / 05.07.01

Interesting question -- I think we have it programmed in us, evolution-wise, to absorb and learn and (at the beginning of our lives) BELIEVE what we are shown, taught, see, experience, etc. --

BUT!

I think we're simultaneously programmed to question, create, break boundaries, rebel, investigate, learn through first-hand experience, experiment -- it is an age old triusm that Youth Rebels And Finds Its Own Way of doing things; very often synergizing new and innovative ways in the process.

The old need the young to pass information on to and to try to relate to (and oftentimes, dominate), but the young need the old to provide them with the basic foundation of living as a human so that they can then put their own stamp on it.

And the old need the young to challenge them and to show them new ways to think, to do, to create, to live. Not all old(er) people are so totally closed-minded -- very often the old learn from the innovations of the young (i.e "The child is father to the man" - Wordsworth).

09:19 / 06.07.01

I think this is a very interesting sort of question because it highlights the problems of evolutionary psychology as a science. Anyone who sets out to explain why humans are credulous ("Children must learn facts quickly") must also explain why humans are sceptical ("Other humans are not necessarily to be trusted") and therefore ends up not explaining very much at all. This sort of theorising, although potentially containing an element of truth, is completely untestable and ultimately not very helpful as an explanatory device. I believe Dawkins has a reputation as an arch-reductionist and as such has to be taken with a large pinch of salt when talking about complex behaviours. Everyone has the capacity for belief and for scepticism, both of which are essential for life as a human.

09:21 / 06.07.01

Actually, shouldn't this thread be renamed "Is conformity a consequence of evolution"?

17:35 / 06.07.01

The whole point of it (as I see it) is that it's a combination of both learning from the older generation and then building on that knowledge by breaking new ground that is essential to human progress.

The same thing applies to art or any craft. Learn the foundation, then once you've mastered all that stuff, break the rules and come up with your own innovations and additions, which will then become part of the history of the field.

It makes perfect sense to me, in an evolutionary sense. Keep the great stuff, and question things and add your own great stuff, so that 45 years from now some of your great stuff is part of what a young person sees as 'old' great stuff. Of course, my use of the phrase 'great stuff' here could annoy anyone to no end. But you get my point.

10:19 / 12.07.01

I think its largly to do with how you view children. The way I see it, evolution has given us brains, which at birth are (effectivly) a blank sheet of paper. The way we then progress, this space is filled - both consciously and unconsciously. In evolutionary terms, our brains are our most powerful feature, and as such the evolutionary drive will be to utilise them as best we can - by asking questions and recieving answers. And with this, we should also be asking questions of the answers we recieve and the persons giving those answers. I think the problem is that we've set ourselves up in such a secure evolutionary neich (eliminating [or trying to] all those organisms which pose a direct threat to us) that we've become lazy and have begun to simply accept the face value answers we are given.

13:59 / 12.07.01

uhm.. most people miss the point that evolution doesn't leave us with only beneficiary features. it can leaves us with features that impede survival. conformity, though, seems to be a mental product of society. I wouldn't know.