how do you know you're not a sociopath

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

i guess i'm wondering if psychopathy might be an evolutionary adaptation unique to humans

i mean there are obvious advantages to being wired up to not give a fuck about others – and being able to hide it – within a population of people who generally do

Adaptation or mere mutation? Evolution isn't what works best; it's just what works. There doesn't need to be an advantage to anything so long as it passes the simple survival test.

Unique to humans? We'd have to be open to mental diversify among much simpler minds and create some typical structure for, say, the feline mind, in order to demonstrate deviations. And I can't imagine how we'd begin to test that.

[dean_r_koontz]

Saying that evolution is "what works" is sloppy language, evolution has a definition and that's what evolution is.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

for example.

[Luke de Spa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation

and it ought to be fairly easy to test whether or not a dog (for example) experiences emotional contagion

i don't know about cats though. cats are assholes

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

Saying that evolution is "what works" is sloppy language, evolution has a definition and that's what evolution is.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

for example.

It's simplified to make a clear point. He's suggesting human evolution endows humans with improvements of some sort or characteristics that necessarily benefit them. But there are mutations that stick and don't go away which do not benefit humans or make them more fit for an environment. Again, just because humans have it that doesn't mean it's beneficial, ergo evolution isn't optimal, just as basically functional as possible.

You lived? You mated? Good enough.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation

and it ought to be fairly easy to test whether or not a dog (for example) experiences emotional contagion

i don't know about cats though. cats are assholes

Herp derp adaptation isn't optimality. It's just meeting basic survival and mating requirements.

No clue why you'd think every single human characteristic has some net benefit to the human. Perhaps sociopaths are mutants who pose no benefit to the species but they function well enough and get laid and that keeps it going.

[Luke de Spa]

i don't think that

you're talking rubbish. benefit to the human. benefit to the species. incoherent

[duovamp]

So why are you searching to justify the mind of a sociopath?

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

i guess i'm wondering if psychopathy might be an evolutionary adaptation unique to humans

Right here you call it an adaptation, as though it were developed for a benefit of any sort - to fit an environment and survive/mate. Don't you think there is a difference between adaptation and mutation?

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by duovamp

It's simplified to make a clear point. He's suggesting human evolution endows humans with improvements of some sort or characteristics that necessarily benefit them. But there are mutations that stick and don't go away which do not benefit humans or make them more fit for an environment. Again, just because humans have it that doesn't mean it's beneficial, ergo evolution isn't optimal, just as basically functional as possible.

You lived? You mated? Good enough.

I don't think LDS has used the term evolution anywhere here until you mentioned it and he hasn't said that the process of evolution necessarily means improvements. you're basically making things up and talking out of your ass.

[duovamp]

I just quoted it you idiot.

[duovamp]

He's implying it's an adaptation. It might not be. What. Is. So. Hard.

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by duovamp

He's implying it's an adaptation. It might not be. What. Is. So. Hard.

I see now that he used the term "evolutionary adaptation". In the definition for adaptation on wikipedia we see this: Adaptations contribute to the fitness and survival of individuals.

He hasn't anywhere, as far as i can tell, said that evolution automatically means an improvement, i think that's the relevant thing to quote if you can find it.

Also evolution still isn't "what works", that's not a simplification, it's just wrong my friendly friend.

[duovamp]

Implying it is an adaptation does though, and that is exactly what he did. I'm saying I don't think it's an adaptation because it might not contribute to fitness or survival. It could very well be a thing that stuck, because evolution isn't reaching for some higher goal or improved state... again, it's just meeting the minimum requirements for survival and reproduction.

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Implying it is an adaptation does though, and that is exactly what he did. .

No, read this again:

i guess i'm wondering if psychopathy might be an evolutionary adaptation unique to humans

This is not implying anything, he's wondering if it is an adaptation, not explicitly stating that it is an adaptation or "implying" that it is. If i say "i'm wondering if i might get a popscicle tomorrow", would you interpret that as me implying that i'm going to get a popscicle tomorrow? Probably not. You've wilfully misinterpreted what Luke has been saying in order to go on nitpicky rant about what evolution is (and you failed even at that simple task).

[duovamp]

Stupid.

No his focus is on whether or not it's unique to humans. He's already made it an evolutionary adaptation. He wonders if it is unique to humans, not if it is an adaptation. Not hard here.

I'm saying it might not even be an adaptation. I feel bad arguing semantics with you about English, but the case is he basically determined it was an adaptation in his question. He did not say "I'm wondering if psychopathy might be an evolutionary adaptation and if it is unique to humans."

[duovamp]

And he'd be here to defend himself... which he has chosen not to do... because he knows he fucked up.

[duovamp]

His question was about the uniqueness, not whether or not it's an adaptation. He already figured it was. Just get out of here koontzy.

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Stupid.

No his focus is on whether or not it's unique to humans. He's already made it an evolutionary adaptation. He wonders if it is unique to humans, not if it is an adaptation. Not hard here.

Yeah you're right about that, i'm not reading properly.

I'm saying it might not even be an adaptation. I feel bad arguing semantics with you about English, but the case is he basically determined it was an adaptation in his question. He did not say "I'm wondering if psychopathy might be an evolutionary adaptation and if it is unique to humans."

true that, very unsatisfying for me this.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Right here you call it an adaptation, as though it were developed for a benefit of any sort - to fit an environment and survive/mate. Don't you think there is a difference between adaptation and mutation?

my understanding is that that's not how it works. all adaptations are mutations, "developed for a benefit" is ludicrous.

i said "adaptation" because, well, sociopaths are widespread, and only a small proportion are criminal. but it might not be an adaptation at all – it might just be the side effect of a certain kind of brain damage, for example.

you may have missed it in your rush to spluttering nerd histrionics but i did start out by saying "i'm wondering if"

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by duovamp

And he'd be here to defend himself... which he has chosen not to do... because he knows he fucked up.

i was sleeping

when did you turn into eulogy?

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

i was sleeping

Sleeping eh? That's convenient.

[duovamp]

Now I'm supposed to believe you live in some sort of... Different time zone?

[yo soy el mejor]

our cat elsa might be a sociopath.

[null123]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md...j75jo1_500.png

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by duovamp

It's simplified to make a clear point. He's suggesting human evolution endows humans with improvements of some sort or characteristics that necessarily benefit them. But there are mutations that stick and don't go away which do not benefit humans or make them more fit for an environment. Again, just because humans have it that doesn't mean it's beneficial, ergo evolution isn't optimal, just as basically functional as possible.

You lived? You mated? Good enough.

ergo?
really?

[Trotskilicious]

QED your stupid