As during the Prohibition where people moved their social gathering from public bars and saloons to their private residences, I think the same thing will happen now. Social gathering in comparable numbers will resume but they will be in private “speak easy” locations with restricted entry to those who have the right test results instead of knowing the right password.
Originally posted on Hypothesis Discovery:
Intelligent design is a counter claim against Darwin evolution of unsupervised random variation selected through natural survival at the species level. The intelligent design claim results from matching currently observed design processes (primarily from human designers) with the observed intricate machines found in biology. After the introduction of this proposal,…
One side of the debate says this is a remedy to a failing capitalism, while the other side says this is socialism.
As I look at it, the real goal is finding a remedy to a broken employment model.
We look back at the recent history and are frustrated that we can not do what they were able to do. We live in a world with many more rules, and a lot less opportunities. The conditions are like that of the experiment: we are frustrated in finding relief and observe what increasing appears completely random occurrences of success. The modern examples of people who do succeed, even in the technologies, appears more to be the case of the person being lucky at being in the right place at the right time rather than being particularly visionary or brilliant. Success is random, and consequently so is the pain of the lack of success. Success is also increasingly rare, leaving a large population in frustration, yearning for its master to save them.
Evolutionary psychology permits us a justification to at least propose a condition where such behaviors would be rewarded and thus passed down through future generations. The problem is that the historic record doesn’t provide clear evidence of this transitional period between hunter-gatherer tribes and settlement tribes. Instead we see evidence of the nomadic tribes tracking and following the food sources through the seasons, and we see evidence of the first settlements. Missing is a condition in between, a period where humans would acquire the behavioral traits to live in a more complex arrangement of even the simplest settlements.
Back to the evolutionary psychology, we assume we know what living conditions were like for our hunter-gatherer ancestors by extrapolating backward the central premise of evolution through natural selection of accidental variations. Following a similar line of reasoning, I am inclined to assume that first breeder was someone who adopted a few orphaned hunter gatherers and bred them to be compliant to a civilized life and prefer living within it than living in the ancestral alternative.
My hypothesis is that men do have a tendency to prefer male voices for topics of high interest or importance, and that tendency is a consequence of the opportunity for a fruitful counterargument when we disagree. I follow more male voices than female voices, because there are many more people I disagree with than I agree with. I will listen to both sexes if I agree with them, but I will only follow men if there is a potential that I will disagree with them. It is only with other men that I can have any chance of gaining anything through argument.