Gameness in humans!

The genome had "risk taking" traits id'd. THey were on the same chromosomal length that included limbic system traits.

Everything is, alas , physics and biology.

I've run into more than a few humans who were definitely gamey. Usually they'd be asking me for spare change on the street.

There are ways to get them to not be so gamey. Tomato based sauces work, as does using a pressure cooker.

On a serious note, though, this is sometimes bred into men culturally (and in the case of the Kelts, the women, too). Japanese members of the Bushi class were obliged by Bushido to never show their fear. They weren't so callow as to deny that they felt fear, but it was considered honorable to overcome it. A man steeped in that tradition would be so shamed by having displayed cowardice that he would likely commit seppuku--put a knife in his own guts. A man captured in battle who felt storngly enough attached to his own commander would insist on being allowed to commit seppuku, and the request would be honored. (Members of the Bushi class, those we call Samurai, would lose respect for their commander if he did not grant such a request.) In honor of his resolution, a friend or other companion would be allowed to stand behind him with a katana, and after he had plunged the knife into his own guts, the friend would then cut off his head to end his suffering. The "banzai" charges of Japanese infantry during the Second World War were an example of this cultural value, as were the Kami-kazi pilots. (Kami-kazi means "divine wind." When the Mongols from China threatend to invade Japan, their fleet was destroyed by a typhoon. The Japanese considered that to have been a spirit wind, or a divine wind, a great kami, i.e., spirit, which protected their divine land.) In the Second World War, the entire paraphernalia of ritual suicide would be observed by kami-kazi pilots before they took off. They would write a death poem, a copy to be sent to their family, and the text copied for publication. They would put the poem in a sash wrapped around their uniform, along with prayers by those who were Buddhists. They would wrap a bandana around their heads with patriotic slogans written on it and the red "meat ball" (as the Americans called it), the symbol of Nippon, in the center. They would be ritually served saki before getting in their aircraft, and the ground crews would stand at attention to honor them as they took off.

This is to be seen in other cultures, too. Among the Norge (i.e. the Norwegians, the Norse), the Danes and the Goths (i.e., the Swedes), but most expecially the Norge, there were the berserkers. The word means "bear shirt," and referred to them dressing in a bear skin cloak before entering battle, and rather than wearing armor. These were sometimes also called Ulfhethnar, meaning wolf skin, another adornment they would wear into battle. Some claim that the Berserkers were so called because they were required to go into the woods unarmored with nothing but a knife, to kill and skin a bear--but this is not reliably attested.

The Scandanavians and the North Germans (such as the Saxons) fought in a style which became a doctrinal imperative, because really, with the weapons they used (they used no missile weapons and no heavy cavalry, and this method could probably stop an attack of heavy cavalry--the Saxons at Hastings held off repeated charges of the Norman heavy cavalry, and the line only broke when King Harold was killed). This tactical doctrine was the shield wall. The two sides would line up in parallel order, both sides facing one another, and they would join their shields (many had hooks so that they could be locked together, although that could dangerous if a man fell), and then the two sides would slug it out. As a man fell, the shield wall would close the gap, and the slugfest would continue. It was such a ritualized combat, often involving no more than a few hundred men on a side, or even just a few dozen, that if a man broke and ran from the shield wall, the other side would desist long enough for his companions to run him down, take his sword away and kill him. (Any man killed in combat who died without his sword or axe in his hand could not enter Valhalla.) Then they would resume the battle of attrition. The combat would usually only finally end when one side had inflicted enough casualties on the other that they could lap around the flanks of their enemies, at which time the shield wall could be broken by sheer weight of numbers. At that point, the losing side could surrender at discretion with no loss of honor. Many, perhaps even most, though, would elect to continue fighting, and if they fell, dropping their weapon, their enemies would put their sword in their hand before administering the coup de grace, to honor their courage. Many devices were thought up to hasten the breaking of the shield wall, such as the introduction of the battle axe, but the technique remained in use until as late as the battle of Hastings (1066) and probably longer in small local quarrels. You could **** yourself, but if you held your place in the shield wall, even your bitterest enemies would honor your courage. This is a different, much more focused kind of courage than the gameness you describe--battles with large forces of thousands of men could go on all day. It would take a special kind of courage to stick to the work when your arm is so tired you feel you can hardly lift your sword.

The berserkers were intended as another method to break the shield wall. They were intendced to run screaming at the enemy, weilding a huge sword or battle axe, wearing no armor and carrying no shield and sacrificing their lives to break the enemies shield wall. It was not necessarily a reliable technique, though. Three weeks before the battle of Hastings, King Harold marched north to what is now Yorkshire, and at Stamford Bridge, defeated Harald Hadrada, a Norge who also claimed his throne. Harald is said to have had 2000 berserkers--however many there were, they utterly failed to break the Saxon shield wall, they were all impaled on Saxon spears or cut down as they closed with the line.

"Mere" discipline can achieve the same effect. When Rome was a rising power, and threatened to conquer all of what is now Italy, the Greek colony cities of the south, in the region known as Italia (hence the name Italy), hired Pyrrhus, the King of Epirus and Macedon, to defeat the Romans. This he routinely did, but at such a cost that he was eventually ruined. Marching on Rome, he was unable to take the city, and began to march back south. At the battle of Asculum, he very nearly destroyed a consular army, killing at least 6000 Romans. But it cost him the cream of his own army. It is said (i cannot state it is known) that after the battle, he looked on the Roman dead, all lying in their ranks, facing their enemy, and wept, because he knew his army was ruined, and that he'd never command another such army. It was the discipline of the Romans which lead very nearly every man of two legions to die where they stood and fought. The only survivors were those wounded who had been carried off before the lines were joined, and the detachments of flank guards who retreated in good order. This is the origin of the term a Pyrrhic victory, a victory which comes at such a cost as to undo the victor. Plutarch wrote:



This sort of courage, the courage of a high order of discipline, allowed the Romans to march over the corpses of their enemies for a thousand years.

Perhaps this is not what you meant, perhaps you meant the attitude of the individual. Consider this a description of the corporate version.

well, culture is actually one of the factors that lead to the speeding up of evolution in the last 10,000 years.

I believe that culture was a consequence, not a driver. It is a f(free time) which is f(cooperation). mDNA Mutations dont seem to show any marked speed up of "evolution" in the last 25000 years.

Without claiming any expert knowledge of mitochondrial DNA, i'd agree with FM for archaeological reasons. Early modern man was highly intelligent (obviously, as intelligent as we are), and culture was the product of the successful exploitation of available resources. Anciently, what is now China and what is now the middle east had mild, wet climates, with a lot of game (primarily deer in China, and antelope in the middle east), and lots of forage foods. Israeli archaeologists have found a site which was occupied by early modern man, and into which Neanderthals moved after early modern man was established. The Neanderthals did well enough, but they eventually moved on or died out (there was no evidence of strife between them). The middens of the Neanderthals showed a heavy reliance on game, with far less use of forage food. The middens of early modern man showed the use of game, of course, but much more evidence of the use of forage plants--more food gathered and more types of food gathered.

Agriculture arose in the middle east and what is now China from the domestication of plants which survive to this day in their original forms--emmer and einkorn wheat, barley, rice, pulses (beans and peas), succulents (melons, cucumbers, etc.) and various fruits and vegetables. Livestock were domesticated, too--cattle, goats and sheep in the middle east, and swine and chickens in China. Chickens made their way west fairly rapidly, but it's obvous that they were domesticated in China.

Culture can only arise where there is sufficient abundance of food to allow significant portions of the population to divert their energies away from hunting, gathering and farming, and toward crafts. That certain areas were rich in game and forage foods, contributing to the development of culture is obvious from artifacts. The Japanese invented pottery (there is some dispute about this, but they certainly came up with it independently, although perhaps before they reached Japan), as long ago as 16,000 ybp. This was thousands of years before the domestication of plants and animals, so they obviously were "food rich" while still relying on hunting, fishing and gathering. Rich sources of food also meant that early modern man could become settled, cease to be nomadic or even just migratory, and devote time and energy to the development of culture and cultural artifacts.

The "Shoop site" an archeological site simialr to Cactus Hill haas shown an interesting thing of its bifacial fluted points. The shape and flute thickness seem to conform to a single style that is slightly different than other Folsom.clovis point sites. The archeologiost from Lehigh did a statistical study of hundreds of them and came to an interesting conclusion that these types of bifacials were "taught" by a craftsman who then passed oin the skill to others. The argument was that this was an example of specialization that persisted from PAleo to Transitional time (around 8k years ago).

That makes sense to me. The bi-facial pressure flake technique was separately developed in at least two places--in what is now France among the Solutreans, and in the Clovis-type in North America. Although i think Solutreans may have reached North America long ago--because of the high rate of the occurance of ancient European MtDNA among the "First Nations" people of eastern Canada, and the ceremonial burial of decidedly Solutrean spear heads--i don't know that it's reasonable to assert that Solutreans taught the method to the Amerindians who produced the Clovis artifacts. Absence of evidence (pace, David) is still important to the prehistoric narrative.

However, obviously, an individual craftsman can have a profound effect on other craftsman. I believe that the utility of the new method would be the clincher. Aestheitc reasons can be important, but you're not going to devote a lot of your time as a tool maker just making "pretty" things. A certain technique is likely only to survive and proliferate if it enhances the utility of the artifact. I suspect that the diagonal bi-facial pressure flake technique in Clovis points must have made those spear points more effective--it was rapidly and widely emulated. The Shoop points must have had some particular utility, too, in my estimation, for it to have been adopted widely by other craftsman.

An absence of emulation can be just as conclusive. Whether or not there were hostilities between them, the Solutreans did not pass on to their successors their bi-facial pressure flake technique. The Magdalenean culture which succeeded them produced stone tool artifacts decidedly inferior to the Solutreans. For whatever reason, they chose not to emulate those whom they displaced, or had insufficient contact to recognize and emulate the superior Solutrean technique.

I would like to know what definition of culture you are using.

Humans, like most primates, are social animals. Organizing into groups with a social hierarchy is part of that. Other parts of culture, like rituals and norms are part of that. Primates have social organization, they have rituals and they have norms. Would you say that primates have culture? They certainly have many of the behavioral traits that we consider part of culture in humans.

Of course humans have abilities that the other primates don't have, namely language and abstract thought. But the underlying behaviors behind culture are certainly similar to other primates and certainly to our evolutionary ancestors.

culture is all that, and more!. The components are broad. Cooperation is displayed in other species , but not to the level where it defines the species like in humans.

P Deloria defines culture as the "State of a civilization at a point in time".

I know of no good reason to assume that other primates don't have language or abstract thought. In the first place, this redolent of the religiously inspired notion that we are unique, the product of a special creation, and therefore superior to mere animals--as though we were not animals ourselves. Furthermore, it is an arrogant hubris to assume that other animals don't have language or abstract thought, because very likely, we are sufficiently prejudiced toward our own ways of communication not to recognize them in animals. Hell, birds communicate.

You also limit extremely the definition of culture. Culture has both abstract and concrete forms, and they are inextricably linked. The specialist production of stone tools represents both forms. It is a concrete form of culture in that is a skilled trait which relies on the ability to think metaphorically--seeing a nodule of chert, or "flint" and envisioning a completed tool after working the stone. It is a concrete form of culture, too, in the higher order production, such as the bi-facial pressure flake method to which we have been referring, which requires long training and practice, and an exclusive devotion to the production of high-quality, specialized tools.

Which ties into the abstact nature of culture once again, because there has to be a corporate understanding of the value of specialist labor, and a consequent corporate decision that the production is sufficiently valuable that the specialist will be supported while producing for the corporate body (whether just a family, or a clan, or a sept or an entire tribe) these specialized products. When you get to agriculture and pottery, you've really got specialization, because the farmer and the potter don't have the time to go out fishing or hunting, and the contribution of the fishermen and hunters is such that they merit a share of the argicultural production and the products of the potter's art.

Culture also includes art and music and dance and story-telling, without doubt. But culture is the sum of human ingenuity and cooperative effort which both sustains and enriches the lives of all members of the corporate unit.

Is science a good enough reason?

Terms like "language" that have scientific testable definitions. Saying that humans have a unique ability called language is science (since it has be backed by research through a scientific process).

Linguistics is a scientific field with rigorous research and well-defined terms. Linguistics, after much scientific study define language as uniquely human. (The number of scientists refuting this is the same as the number of scientists disputing evolution and global warming).

On thing that the science of linguistics will tell you is that language is not synonymous with communication.

Cognitive Science is another scientific field backed by equally rigorous research. The idea that humans are unique in the area of language and cognitive abilities is backed by science. This has nothing to do with non-scientific ideas like "special creation" or "superior".

I will take back my broad term "abstract thought" (which I used in haste). There are types of abstract thought that humans can do that are not seen in other primates. Again these are well defined by cognitive science and carefully tested.

I wasn't limiting the definition of culture. I was questioning the definition as the word was being used in this discussion.

Let's consider the idea that culture is a function of free time and abundant resources. My first objection is that this implies a quantization of "culture". My inner scientist wants a objectively measurable definition of the word culture so that we can test this thesis.

We have Jared Diamonds hypothesis that societies that have more resources become more "advanced" (certain in terms of technology and art).

But what about the other societies that didn't develop with abundant resources. It is clear that they don't develop technology as quickly. But, would you really say that they don't have a culture? After all, these societies had rules, and folklore and a hierarchy and customs and religion.

I find it interesting to consider the motives attached to this "gameness".
Human beings will accept enormous risks for an, often, indeterminate gain. The age old question of why does man climb the mountain, because it's there seems a too simplistic answer.
Obviously there is a social gain in the achievement of climbing Mount Everest, is this the true motive? We claim personal reasons for such risk taking, yet those personal reasons actually appear to have social attachments.

In the case of "gameness" in the dog, is this as much a part of standing within the pack as anything else? Hunger motivates solitary predators to take greater risks, yet such solitary creatures appear to take such risks for no other reason.

Within social species, evolution favors the trait, while among solitary animals the trait has little value beyond barest survival.

First, let's put Jared Diamond in perspective. For all of his expertise, and specialized knowledge of the people of Papua-New Guinea, his knowledge of history (at least on the evidence of what he writes) seems to be restricted to certain events which he apparently believes will confirm his pet hypotheses. It is amazing how often he distorts the historical record, and ignores how he has contradicted himself.

I don't intend to to consider the idea of culture as product of free time and abundant resources--certainly i haven't written that. The flint knapper doesn't enjoy "free time," he or she devotes their time and energies to an activity which benefits everyone in the corporate body, in exchange for which they are partially or entirely excused the activities of hunting, fishing and gathering. I mentioned cases in which abundant resources were available only in reference to those two areas in which the domestication of plants and animals first arose. At no time did i define culture as arising from abundant resources. The concrete artifacts of culture can only be produced when there are sufficient resources so the members of the corporate group can devote some or all of their time to producing cultural artifacts--and some, most especially those which can be defined as art, could and were produced in what you are pleased to call free time, which was imposed on early modern man in times of dearthh--winter or dry seasons.

[quote]My first objection is that this implies a quantization of "culture". My inner scientist wants a objectively measurable definition of the word culture so that we can test this thesis.[/quote]

As this does not accurately describe what you are calling an hypothesis, at least to the extent that it doesn't accurate describe what i've written, i remain unimpressed with your " inner scientist." Sceintists need to avoid the fallacy of straw man arguments as much as does anyone else. You ignore entirely that i referred to aspects of culture which are abstract, such as the implied corporate contract which allows skilled members of the corporate body to devote their time to valuable pursuits other than hunting, fishing and gathering. You also ignore that i have referred to art, music, song and dance as aspect of culture.

Mr. Diamond's hypothesis is contradicted by the reality of the historical record which he attempts to distort to support his thesis. For example, he asserts that European cultures dominated other cultures because of domesticates, metallurgy and fire arms. It's a pretty hilariously stupid hypothesis, and is contradicted by the historical record. China not only had metallurgy, their bronzes were superior to anything developed in the West by more than a thousand years. They invented gun powder, and then failed to exploit it as the West did. Japan, by contrast, used firearms extensively in the Sengoku period, only to have them forbidden during the subsequent Tokugawa shogunate, leaving them unable to effectively respond to Matthew Perry and is American fleet when they appeared in 1853. China also had the domesticates, and consequently the diseases which are concommitant--and yet Europeans managed to overwhelm the Middle Kingdom and dominate them militarily and economically. The advantages enjoyed by the West weren't Diamond's simple-minded and simplistic "guns, germs and steel." Compare that to the conquest of Gaul by Caesar. The Kelts were physically larger and better fed than Roman legionnaries, and were possessed of a superior metalurgy--they were using steel long swords while the Romans used the bronze gladius. The Romans prevailed because of superior organizational skills and a flexible society ready and willing to adopt and adapt--and that's just why the West could overcome so many other cultures. Cortez marchedon Tenochtitlan with slightly more than 400 men and very few firearms. Their steel did them precious little good against the Tlascalans they faced in battle, and if Cortez had not been an extremely gifted natural diplomat, he and his pathetic little expedition would have been destroyed before they had even crossed the mountains. Mr. Diamond ignores the contradiction that Europeans overcame many other cultures which possessed guns and steel and were as inured to the diseases of domestic animals.

No, i wouldn't and haven't said that societies without abundant resources don't have culture. You're employing a strawman once again. In fact, much of humanity has lived on the edge of starvation for as long as we have an historical or achaeological record. Once again, i only noted that abundant resources enabled the relatively sedentary lifestyle from which agriculture arose.

You're not very good at this sort of thing, are you?

See Answers-dot-com for their definition of language.

I reject your claim that language is exclusive to humans, and that it cannot be synonymous with communication. What do you propose that language is, if it is not communication? It appears to me that you define language and culture conveniently to your argument. Does science tell you what the hoots, roars, bugles, grunts, growls, songs, twitters and all the other noises that animals make mean?

I find it hilarious that you contend that linguistic is "a scientific field with rigorous research and well-defined terms." That is mere assertion on your part. All sciences can suffer from a lack of plain, common sense (although frequently wrong, common sense is not inevitably wrong). A German linguist at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century told a story on himself. He was in northern Norway, and became excited because he had met a literate old Lapp man who spoke Norwegian, the pidgin of Norwegian and Lapp, and Lapp. He began to ask him how do you say this, how do you say that. He reports that he asked him: "What do people say when they die?" (Meaning, what is the verb, and how is it conjugated.) His interlocutor stared at him with a pitying look for a moment, and then replied "Around here, when people die, they don't say anything." You suffer from tunnel vision for sake of your argument, and you revere "science" in an almost mystical fashion. I am as convinced that linguistic is a science as i am by those who allege that history is a science--which is to say, not at all.

You have made a set of wild assertion about linguistics and "cognitive science" which i frankly believe you cannot substantiate.

Once again what you don't know about communication among animals beggars your claims.

Excuse the italics in that post, i only realized now (too late to edit) that i had failed to close the UBB code around the word "sufficient."