So socialism

[Narz]

Nobles liked gold. Gold was mined by other peasants (or slaves, etc). This isn't territorialism, it's "I want more of the shiny thing

Nobody cares about gold, gold buys status, control and dare I say, territory.

And presumably nobles and peasants were both humans and peasants would act the exact same way (territorially) if they had the power to (and surely they did in their hovel like the proverbial downtrodden working stiff who gets **** on all day by his boss, comes home and kicks the dog off the couch).

I dunno maybe you guys are genuinely a different breed. When I started my last job 1st things I remember thinking (besides how computer system worked, basic functions of doing my job) is where is the best place I can sit where no one will bother me, basically looking @ the lay of the land to acquire comfortable spot for myself.

Maybe people work these things out subconsciously or again have never been in many situation where they had to set strong boundaries.

It's true were not as territorial as say, hamsters who will kill each other if you put two in a cage but just because we must cooperate and play nicey-nice within society doesn't make on non-territorial (again think of the game that brought you here)

 

[Narz]

The idea that we're similar in reasoning and "primal urges" or whatever hokum Narz ascribes to doesn't map, because we've been given a thinking tool (however abused) that affords us a massive degree of reasoning compared to, say, a cat.

I don't ascribe to human exceptionalism

Except you do... you think your prefrontal cortex makes you superior to a cat and when you act catty you can explain your behavior in terms that make sense. But @ the end of the day the pfc is only a small part of who we are (and in our sleep deprived, overworked, stressed out society it's impaired even further)

But on the other hand I don't liken us too much to animals

It doesn't matter if you like it or liken it, we're animals

It comes out of socialism being "unworkable" because we're "territorial" and not "collectivist", so we're not even discussing science. We're discussing in service to an ideology (or specifically, an opposition to). I appreciate the tangent though. Honestly more interesting.

You're projecting a hypothetical person.

We're both territorially and collectivist and some degree of socialism isn't just workable but necessary imo

For someone who claims they don't like binary thinking you tend to put people in binary categories based on 1 opinion

 

[Gorbles]

Nobody cares about gold, gold buys status, control and dare I say, territory.

Read a history book. Plenty of rich folk cared about nothing but gold. Some still do

I dunno maybe you guys are genuinely a different breed. When I started my last job 1st things I remember thinking (besides how computer system worked, basic functions of doing my job) is where is the best place I can sit where no one will bother me, basically looking @ the lay of the land to acquire comfortable spot for myself.

Territoriality r.e. space is not the same as animal territoriality. I linked this already.

Except you do... you think your prefrontal cortex makes you superior to a cat and when you act catty you can explain your behavior in terms that make sense. But @ the end of the day the pfc is only a small part of who we are (and in our sleep deprived, overworked, stressed out society it's impaired even further)

It means I have a superior brain to a cat, yes. They have better reflexes, night vision, we have opposable thumbs, etc. I can't breath underwater. I can't naturally lift multiple times my body weight like an ant can. I don't have multiple stomachs to digest grass properly. It's not human exceptionalism to recognise we have aspects that are superior. It's human exceptionalism to think that therefore we are superior in every way / or in general as a whole.

But I do not act "catty" in that I don't act like a cat. Acting "catty" is anthropomorphising (cat) behaviour by relating it to a domesticated animal (that we have domesticated for centuries, if not millenia, which therefore lends itself to cultural history around our relationship with cats as pets) - and then projecting it back on a human. When I'm acting catty, I'm acting human. The label is just a cultural tidbit. This is the distinction you don't seem to understand, by repeatedly confusing two separate (but related) concepts of territorialism.

You're projecting a hypothetical person.

I'm speaking generally to the attitudes in the thread. Not everything's about you. But you are the one that made the (unevidenced, uncited) claim about humans being inherently territorial in the same way animals are (despite the fact, that - as linked - territorialism in humans refers to a pretty separate concept).

It doesn't matter if you like it or liken it, we're animals

We're placed in the animal kingdom in terms of taxonomy, sure. When I say "liken us too much to animals", I mean people who, completely independently of any evidence, assert similarities between human behaviour and that of other animals. We have legs, other animals have legs. We have a brain, other animals also have a brain. But our legs are not their legs, and our brain is not their brain. This leads to an astounding amount of differences, compounded over time.

For someone who claims they don't like binary thinking you tend to put people in binary categories based on 1 opinion

Who said it was one opinion? You sure do a lot of assuming to justify your attempted gotchas

You don't have to like it, but I categorise people, as most people do, by the sum of my interactions with them. I do it, you do it, everyone does it. I'm happy to treat every thread as a blank slate when others are (to some extent - it's not always possible) as it helps discussion when everyone is carrying less baggage, but when you say the same thing you've said in however many threads over the past however many years, I kinda assume that does in fact provide some evidence as to how you think as a person.

 

[amadeus]

Nobody cares about gold

That's not my understanding of history if you look at the economics of mercantilist policy: always have a favorable balance of accounts and restrict as much as possible the export of gold and silver, lest you lead your country to economic ruin by not having "enough" bullion.

 

[Farm Boy]

Collectivism is not the opposite of being territorial. That worldwide communism sought to make itself true with survivor bias, for one. But even if that is a perversion, somehow, it tracks back to base. A group may share a tent with thier friends' kids, but an unknown unexplained adult in the middle of the night is a source of danger and suspicion. Growing and eating the tops of grasses didn't do that by any reasonable supposition I've been exposed to.

 

[Narz]

Read a history book. Plenty of rich folk cared about nothing but gold. Some still do

Gold is a symbol for control of others (people risk their lives to mine gold) and status which is the same thing (ultimately control of territory, resources)

When you give a woman a gold necklace you're saying "hey I have enuf resources/territory that i can afford to waste some of them on this status symbol". Your example proves my point

Territoriality r.e. space is not the same as animal territoriality. I linked this already.

Space is space

I'm speaking generally to the attitudes in the thread. Not everything's about you. But you are the one that made the (unevidenced, uncited) claim about humans being inherently territorial in the same way animals are (despite the fact, that - as linked - territorialism in humans refers to a pretty separate concept).

As you said read a history book

People fight over territory and control. Why do you think that is? Like animals people need space to live and space is control over resources.

We're placed in the animal kingdom in terms of taxonomy, sure. When I say "liken us too much to animals", I mean people who, completely independently of any evidence, assert similarities between human behaviour and that of other animals

so you don't believe there is any similarilarity between human and animals?

. We have legs, other animals have legs. We have a brain, other animals also have a brain. But our legs are not their legs, and our brain is not their brain. This leads to an astounding amount of differences, compounded over time.

Of course

Who said it was one opinion? You sure do a lot of assuming to justify your attempted gotchas

You pigeonhole me on the regular and others.

You don't have to like it, but I categorise people, as most people do, by the sum of my interactions with them. I do it, you do it, everyone does it. I'm happy to treat every thread as a blank slate when others are (to some extent - it's not always possible) as it helps discussion when everyone is carrying less baggage, but when you say the same thing you've said in however many threads over the past however many years, I kinda assume that does in fact provide some evidence as to how you think as a person.

If you'd pay attention whatsoever you'd know my politics but you seem to get riled up over certain trees and miss the forest

 

[Narz]

That's not my understanding of history if you look at the economics of mercantilist policy: always have a favorable balance of accounts and restrict as much as possible the export of gold and silver, lest you lead your country to economic ruin by not having "enough" bullion.

Gold is a symbol, it's mostly worthless in and of itself, but general if you can control gold you can control people

 

[Narz]

On topic here's analysis of an interview of bernie sanders, a social democrat from US (and who many Americans for better or worse think about when they think of socialism)

 

[Farm Boy]

The endgame of any mmo is fashion. Which is why it's often sold. Gold is useless when more immediate needs emerge, such as aging, health, absolute lack of food, violence by non-cooperators. But in such a social animal as ourselves, the endgame status of fashion(roughly, gold) can be used within cooperative groups to socially offload health risks, interpersonal violence, and food shortages.

 

[Narz]

MMO?

 

[Farm Boy]

Online persistent game. When there aren't any more dungeons to clear or puzzles to solve, all that is left is community status. Looking good is very good status. It doesn't have to be gold or a feather in your cap, it could be notorious roleplaying, excellent community advice, or some other social distinction. But man, do gaming companies sell a lot of imaginary hats. It's like there's some shared trait it caters to.

 

[Narz]

Yeah that's what Google said just wanted to understand the analogy

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm still weirded out that people have lived far enough from animals that they've lost the understanding of how very like us they are. The electric hats computer playtime analogy wasn't first choice.

 

[Narz]

I'm still weirded out that people have lived far enough from animals that they've lost the understanding of how very like us they are. The electric hats computer playtime analogy wasn't first choice.

It's also a desire for specialness. If we accept that we're just another organism who's (whose?) continued success as a species is not guaranteed its both a blow to the ego and sense of security.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, humility is a hard virtue. It takes a sort of religious dedication, often enough. If that's the impulse zoomed in on in that thought.

 

[Hygro]

The endgame of any mmo is fashion. Which is why it's often sold. Gold is useless when more immediate needs emerge, such as aging, health, absolute lack of food, violence by non-cooperators. But in such a social animal as ourselves, the endgame status of fashion(roughly, gold) can be used within cooperative groups to socially offload health risks, interpersonal violence, and food shortages.

The endgame is fashion, or the endgame is playing hardcore mode and then dueling to the death before the ladder reset?

 

[Gorbles]

Collectivism is not the opposite of being territorial. That worldwide communism sought to make itself true with survivor bias, for one. But even if that is a perversion, somehow, it tracks back to base. A group may share a tent with thier friends' kids, but an unknown unexplained adult in the middle of the night is a source of danger and suspicion. Growing and eating the tops of grasses didn't do that by any reasonable supposition I've been exposed to.

They're not opposites, but they cause friction at times.

Gold is a symbol for control of others (people risk their lives to mine gold) and status which is the same thing (ultimately control of territory, resources)

When you give a woman a gold necklace you're saying "hey I have enuf resources/territory that i can afford to waste some of them on this status symbol". Your example proves my point

And I'm saying that's not what the animalistic form of territorialism means.

But when I said "gold", I meant "currency". I didn't mean a present. People fighting wars over gold isn't people fighting wars because someone threw poop at their back yard. We even have a concept for it - an insult. Someone peeing on a tree in your garden is insulting you. They're not encroaching on your territory to invoke a baseline response. We codify things according to our culture. There's no baseline requirement to get mad and throw rocks at them. You can even find it funny. That's not "we've buried our inner caveman". That's "our brains don't work in the same way most animals do".

Space is space

No, they're different concepts. I've linked them, you can refuse to accept that, or ignore them, or whatever, but I've given the requisite evidence. There's nothing else I can say if you want to believe in some different version of reality where they actually mean the same thing.

People fight over territory and control. Why do you think that is? Like animals people need space to live and space is control over resources.

It's not like animals, no.

so you don't believe there is any similarilarity between human and animals?

That's not what I said.

You pigeonhole me on the regular and others.

And you me, so I guess all's well that ends well. Unless you want to actually talk past whatever deflection this is? If I get pidgeonholed, I try to ask why and unpack what happened. You just rely on it as a defense mechanism without a need for further explanation, as you can see here.

But more than that, you give more time to people who agree with you, vs. the people you don't. We all do that. I do it. I'm just pointing it out.

If you'd pay attention whatsoever you'd know my politics but you seem to get riled up over certain trees and miss the forest

I know your politics. Disagreeing with your opinion is not the same thing. I can disagree with you until the end of time, if I want to. I have no idea why I'd want that, but you're doing the weird thing where you say one thing, I respond, and then you bring up a completely unrelated thing.

You said I categorised people based on a single opinion. That's not what I do. Sorry. It must be convenient to think that of me, and more than a little ironic.

 

[Farm Boy]

The endgame is fashion, or the endgame is playing hardcore mode and then dueling to the death before the ladder reset?

Status either way. But you get more if you do it while looking good.

Those guild tags <Mortal> are definitely a fashion and status marker.

Edit: the hats are easier. You can buy those with a straightforward transaction of a currency that is directly interchangeable with gold, the metal, itself. Being the best on the ladder takes more steps. One, you need the leisure time. Two, you need the equipment and internet connection. Three, you need stability. Four: there's a lot of more things, but I'm tired of listing them all. Nobody is queuing the ladder while they're on shift in a meat packing plant at 16. Going farther, if we take Starcraft, as an example, with South Korea as a bastion of skill, how many steps do we need before it relies on a literal wall of conscripts holding back a murderous, rapist horde of communists at the edge of their territory?

 

[Bibor]

Are you Gen X or Gen Edge?

X

 

[Akka]

On the contrary, you are so locked into your classical paradigm that you literally cannot accept that it is simply wrong.

Err, self-awareness please ?
You're the one flatly telling that everything is cultural and that humans aren't territorial, I'd say you are much further down the slippery slope of "I reject reality and substitute instead my ideological preferences".

We're placed in the animal kingdom in terms of taxonomy, sure. When I say "liken us too much to animals", I mean people who, completely independently of any evidence, assert similarities between human behaviour and that of other animals. We have legs, other animals have legs. We have a brain, other animals also have a brain. But our legs are not their legs, and our brain is not their brain. This leads to an astounding amount of differences, compounded over time.

Hu, no. We are acting exaclty like other social mammals, just with more flourish and more power.