From: John Marlow (johnmarlow@gmx.net)
Date: Tue May 01 2001 - 22:08:02 MDT
Brief comments...
#
On 1 May 2001, at 13:21, BigBooster wrote:
> TOWARD A THEORY OF HUMAN ERROR
> by Frederick Mann
>
> Feedback appreciated!
>...
> If primitive man mistakes a bear for a tree stump, he tends to
> die for his mistake. However, if he mistakes a tree stump for
> a bear, he suffers few (if any) negative consequences, and he
> survives.
#Third man likes bear meat, spears everything that looks like a tree
stump OR a bear, lives long and prospers, dies fat and happy. We did
not ascend by being timid. I suggest the overly cautious are almost
always (sonner or later) doomed--as are the overly incautious
(usually sooner). Trick is finding the balance.
> John F. Shumaker has propounded the theory that certain aspects
> of nature (random accidents, brutality, death) are too frightening
> for most humans to confront. By distorting reality with myths, they
> enjoy "greater peace of mind and body" and tend to live longer.
#Naaah; they're just trying to make sense of what they don't
understand. Once they have it figured, they're less stressed and live
longer.
> There may also be biological origins of human error. The "triune
> brain theory" claims that the human brain evolved in such a way
> that the modern human brain actually consists of "three brains":
> a primitive reptilian brain, a more evolved but still primitive
> mammalian/emotional limbic system, and a modern neocortex
> or thinking brain. Under certain conditions of stress and/or real
> or perceived threat, the more primitive brain structures tend to
> take over control, sometimes resulting in irrational behavior.
#Whatever the cause, this can of course be overcome through training
and discipline. OTOH, lizard brain has its uses...
>
> Conformity is also a factor. In primitive tribes, if you didn't
> conform so as to be "like everybody else," you risked being
> kicked out, most likely leading to an early death. The conformists
> tended to survive and the nonconformists tended to die off.
#Strictly interpreted, this would have led to perpetual stagnation.
Therefore, it's not entirely accurate. The conformists are still
swinging through the trees.
>
> Certain "professionals" (such as medical doctors and lawyers)
> command a great deal of power, money, and respect to the extent
> that their customers are ignorant and error-prone. The economic
> interest of many "professionals" is for their clients to be so ignorant
> and error-prone that they often need "expert" assistance, but not
> so ignorant and error-prone that they die too soon! -- the longer
> the victims can be "milked," the better!
#Look at applying this logic to government; the Nanny State.
> Philosophers such as Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and Rand have indicated
> that most animals automatically develop to achieve their full potential.
> Humans are different in that we need to make a deliberate effort to
> develop our minds and bodies correctly. Lazy conformists who don't
> make this special, deliberate, continuous effort to develop their minds
> and bodies tend to stagnate in errors of relative mediocrity.
#Seems to conflict with earlier--conformists survive; nonconformists
die out.
> * Education -- To the extent that the powerful (who seek to acquire the
> wherewithal to survive with least effort) control education, they are
> likely to "shape" education to produce relatively helpless, ignorant, weak,
> error-prone, obedient workers and worshippers who suffer from their
> errors and often need "professional services" and "welfare assistance."
>
#Yes; the Nanny State.
jm
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:25 MST