Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What are your specialities?
#81
I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

It is a bit difficult to explain the generational hormone theory since people often associate the "higher level" cognitive functions and behaviors only to humans. But this is an illusion. Animals like lemmings have empathy. Monkeys have altruism. There isn't a single emotion that is unique to humans. And if one thinks that for example Marxism or other concepts of equal pay are somehow human inventions, they're entirely wrong, since these concepts are merely slightly more sophisticated versions of animal instincts and thought patterns:



The experiment starts at time 1:20.


Therefore it is also foolish to think that hormone levels wouldn't affect human behavior, especially if generations have the same average hormone levels, which amplifies the generational traits. And if these monkeys (or humans) had higher levels of oxytocin and vasopressin, the reactions would be even more pronounced, since those hormones promote equality (among in-groups, and I suspect those monkeys are of the same group).
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#82
(10-09-2019, 02:51 AM)Ldr Wrote:
(10-08-2019, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Single explanations always fail. It is a mark of insecurity on your part to attribute everything to one factor...

And it's impossible to attribute different hormones to whole different generations. People's bodies are too different to do that.

I don't see that you have cited scientific research and actual measurements of people of different ages on this, and I don't think any has been conducted, and I doubt that it could be. But your theory would depend on this, since it's a physical and verifiable theory. And I detect cynicism in your reasoning too, which is a false basis for ideas. Civilization is not built on cynicism, but can be destroyed by it.

Since human behavior is driven by emotions, what would you say is the hormone that is driving your theory?

Well, there are the Russian studies on voles and lemmings that quite directly confirm my theory, as those species have verified cyclical generational hormone levels, and those levels coincide with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's generation and their traits. The hypothalamus is very similar among humans and other animal species, so there is no limitation why humans wouldn't have the same generational cycle, especially since this hormone cycle coincides with the Strauss-Howe generational theory's premises. So I do not understand how "attributing everything to one factor" is a mark of insecurity, as this "one factor" is driving the generational cycles in other animals than humans.

This is why attributing average hormone levels to whole generations isn't impossible in any way. Look at the evidence in chapter 4. How else would you explain that breastfeeding & average paternal age & nurturing intensity go hand in hand with the Strauss-Howe generational theory? Especially since breastfeeding is a biological mechanism. And the alcohol consumption drops as the oxytocin levels go high. Are you saying these a coincidences? That it's a coincidence that I read a historical theory and then all the biological stats in several Western countries just happen to support the hormone theory, including other cyclical species like lemmings, voles and snowshoe hares? Do those species also have social dynamics and societal events that drive the social mood and their hormone levels? I'm being a little sarcastic here, but in good spirits only, since I'm just trying to explain how all of this being a mere coincidence is just impossible.

Human behavior is driven by emotions, and emotions are driven by hormone levels. Hormone levels are driven by hypothalamus, and different generations have different structures (efficiency) in hypothalamus, just like with other animals. For example, other animals also have empathy and altruism, just to name a few more "advanced" emotions that were previously thought to be uniquely human. The hormones in play are (at least) oxytocin, vasopressin and cortisol.

I really don't understand how you can detect cynicism in my words. It's mostly only science I'm referring to and then building upon that evidence. You say that civilizations based on cynicism will fail, but I would say that civilizations based on scientific ignorance will definitely fail harder.  Big Grin But seriously speaking, I'm a bit worried if the societal levels of oxytocin and the more aggressive variant vasopressin are going higher. The societal tensions are already high, politicians have formed tight camps, fake news and propaganda is on the rise, and so is the willingness to accept this propaganda. It's not like CNN and Fox News are forcing people to watch their propaganda! People choose to watch these networks, as they like what they hear. The hosts on those channels allow inaccuracies/lies to be stated without interruption, and this is clear evidence of high oxytocin & vasopressin levels, as described in chapter 2 of the generational hormone theory.

The social mood is currently snappy, and the youngest generation is very sensitive (just as Strauss & Howe predicted), just like individuals with high levels of oxytocin and vasopressin are predicted react, as this can lead to social sensory overload. (https://neurosciencenews.com/sensory-ove...asd-14420/) Cortisol has also been linked to violence (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085023.htm), so high levels of cortisol would probably not be a good thing either, and since cortisol suppresses testosterone (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880087/), Neil Howe has already inadvertently been looking at the solution to the generational theory's basic premises: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/20...ather-was/

Your own statements show cynicism, as when you discussed how hopeless and futile our society and its politics has been; somewhere earlier in this thread that the basis of your views. Just above, you have contrasted cynicism with scientific ignorance, but there is no such opposition in existence. Cynicism is not the opposite of scientific ignorance. Science can support cynicism, and so can religion, or philosophy, or myths. Cynicism is something like a belief that failure is inevitable and that ideals cannot be attained. Science contends this more often than religion, to the extent that science is physicalist and determinist, because in that worldview there is no possibility of any ideals or any act of will to attain anything, and there is no creativity. If events show increasing levels of vasopressin, that does not give you any way of creating a less aggressive society. You remain a helpless victim of circumstance, which is what physicalist determinism decrees that you are.

I don't see any studies of hormone levels in human generations that you have cited. Simply drawing conclusions from studies of lemmings is invalid. You can declare that humans are no different from animals, but that is your assumption, and if there are no studies of hormone levels in human generations, you have not proved your hypothesis. And speaking personally, at this point, I don't trust anything that a society beholden to one man who owns 40% of the country does.

My apologies if my statements sound too harsh on you. I get my ruffles up about physicalism sometimes, and about other things too. My bad, I guess. I like the advice given by a PBS youtube science commentator who ends his videos by saying, "stay curious." There's always much to learn and discover about facts and reality, through many ways of knowing. Curiosity led me to my current views on things. It leads scientists to their discoveries, and philosophers and mystics to their foundational theories of reality.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#83
Eric, I understand why you would interpret my words as cynicism, but let me explain this once more to be more clear.

I believe that vasopressin levels are on the rise during a 4th turning, and as vasopressin is apparently an essential part of group aggression, there is a greater risk for aggression during a 4th turning. But the environment absolutely matters, just like Strauss & Howe write about the 4th turnings, and this can be compared to what it's like when puberty starts: when the surroundings a sound, there may not be many conflicts, but if the surroundings are socially fractured, the possibility of conflicts is much, much higher. I don't think this is cynicism. But to ignore the effects of hormonal activity on the group psyche would be ignorance in my mind (assuming I'm correct in the findings). I hope this clarifies things a bit. No need to apologize for sounding harsh, this forum is meant for criticism, and no theory can stand on its two feet if it can't handle criticism.

As for the generational hormone levels, there are no studies done on oxytocin and vasopressin since they've been so hard to detect reliably until recent years. But I believe that the combined stats of breastfeeding, paternal age, divorce rates and alcohol consumption show the changes to oxytocin levels. But unfortunately I have not yet come up with a way to find vasopressin levels from historical medical data, which is why the theory still mostly relies more on recorded historical events and social mood for vasopressin. You can check the chapter 6.3 for the initial findings on how to find and assess historical vasopressin levels until they're (hopefully soon) incorporated to the theory as a full chapter.
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#84
(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?
Reply
#85
(10-20-2019, 05:23 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?

Bill, concepts like altruism and empathy do not require "brainpower" in the way I believe you see it. Altruism and empathy are emotions, and animals like humans and chimpanzees have these emotions. We humans have created advanced languages to talk about these emotions and form them into concepts, but that's all, they're in no way human "inventions".
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#86
(10-20-2019, 05:31 AM)Ldr Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 05:23 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?

Bill, concepts like altruism and empathy do not require "brainpower" in the way I believe you see it. Altruism and empathy are emotions, and animals like humans and chimpanzees have these emotions. We humans have created advanced languages to talk about these emotions and form them into concepts, but that's all, they're in no way human "inventions".

Altruism and empathy are indeed instinctive and animals are capable of them. But expanding one's horizon of identification beyond one's pack or immediate family does require abstract thinking. A dog can empathize with another whimpering dog, but it cannot conceive the idea of all dogs as a group with shared interests.
Reply
#87
Bill, do you belive wars require abstract thinking? Chimpanzees can go to war that can last for several years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
Humans are not the only animals that are capable of assessing an another tribe in terms of size, resources and potential threat, and then making an educated decision if to go to war or not. It is a mix of emotions and rational thinking. Humans and other animals understand the feelings of other animals. Dogs even understand human emotions.

It doesn't require a brain to learn, remember, or solve puzzles, as even slime mould is capable of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UxGrde1NDA
The decisions of a slime mould are the result of remembering and then making decisions based on new information and mixing them with the memories.
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#88
(10-20-2019, 07:31 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 05:31 AM)Ldr Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 05:23 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?

Bill, concepts like altruism and empathy do not require "brainpower" in the way I believe you see it. Altruism and empathy are emotions, and animals like humans and chimpanzees have these emotions. We humans have created advanced languages to talk about these emotions and form them into concepts, but that's all, they're in no way human "inventions".

Altruism and empathy are indeed instinctive and animals are capable of them. But expanding one's horizon of identification beyond one's pack or immediate family does require abstract thinking. A dog can empathize with another whimpering dog, but it cannot conceive the idea of all dogs as a group with shared interests.

Aside from one-on-one empathy, dogs as a group are usually thinking of prey as with lionesses in a pride. Really, there is hardly an enemy more formidable than a dog pack*. Dogs attack and kill as one giant predator, and four 80-pound dogs for all practical purposes make one 320-pound tiger. Break into a house with four rottweilers, Dobermans, or German Shepherds, and you might as well be in the tiger-infested Sundarbans in which the tigers have a taste for human flesh. (Dogs are the best reason that I can think of other than recognition of the rights of others and respect for the criminal code to not be a burglar). 

The human-canine bond recalls that a human family and a wolf pack have similar structure. Man tamed wolves because wolves could not tame us; we cannot live long on diets of raw meat and fish as can wolves, but wolves and dogs (dogs have evolved to tolerate grain in their diets) can live on a human diet. 


*the worst? -- the human-canine combination in a hunt.  Police K-9 units are particularly effective.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#89
(10-20-2019, 05:31 AM)Ldr Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 05:23 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Ldr Wrote: I agree, Bill, but it is important to notice that all of the concepts you mentioned hold true for animals too, although humanism is obviously replaced with the correct species name.

I don't think so, since animals don't have the brainpower needed to grasp these concepts. They can be loyal to their pack like dogs, wolves and bonobos, but nothing more. Do you really think a dog is capable of "species solidarity" with oppressed dogs in a puppy mill?

Bill, concepts like altruism and empathy do not require "brainpower" in the way I believe you see it. Altruism and empathy are emotions, and animals like humans and chimpanzees have these emotions. We humans have created advanced languages to talk about these emotions and form them into concepts, but that's all, they're in no way human "inventions".

C.G. Jung was one who distinguished between emotions and feelings. Emotions are more of an automatic physical response. Feelings are more conscious and are part of an ability to understand reality and make a choice. I would say reason and thinking are part of this ability too.

I prefer to look at life as evolving toward higher conditions. Humans have developed abilities and sensitivities greater than slime molds. I agree with Teilhard de Chardin that the world holds together from above, not below. Humans cannot be reduced to the lower levels. Something in the lower levels holds the potential of the higher or more conscious levels. There is conscious intelligence of some sort in all of life and even in a primitive way in non-life. 

Reduction of the higher to the lower is, I would say, a kind of cynicism. I prefer a more optimistic view that the lower is a reflection of the higher, or has within it the potential of the higher; that life aspires to unfold and grow to greater consciousness and a greater complexity of relatedness. Only awareness of the higher can give value to all of life and being. Reduction to the lower erases that awareness.

I describe war as failure; that other species engage in war shows that war is a lower level of consciousness that humans are evolving out of. We do have a long way to go, apparently. Experience on the internet shows that we have a lot of trouble communicating.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)