https://methalashun.blogspot.com/2022/12/u-ever-ben-quotedhawthorne-pig.html
Do you see all of these guys* (in the team photos above and below and that I mention in the link)? I was better than all of them (as smart if not smarter; more athletic; as good looking, if not better looking; from a similar socioeconomic background, if not higher, etc.).
*And this is just a tiny sample. There are thousands of other guys that I haven't mentioned or shown pictures of that knew me/knew of me growing up that are now doing much better than me.
Now look at their life and mine. What happened? A number of factors (genetic, biological, social, etc.) beyond my control conspired to produce my life outcome.
.jpg)
P.S. I'll Rewrite The Paragraphs I've Written About Socialization (How You Develop Your Preferences, Predilections, Beliefs, Speaking Style, Mannerisms, Etc.) And Suicide (The Social Circumstances And Characteristics Of People That Commit Suicide) Over The Weekend.
Saying that suicide is adaptive may also sound odd to you from an evolutionary perspective, because on the surface it seems to fly in the face of evolution’s first rule of thumb, which is to survive and reproduce. However, as William Hamilton’s famous principle of inclusive fitness elucidated so clearly, it is the proportion of one’s genetic material surviving in subsequent generations that matters; and so if the self’s survival comes at the expense of one’s genetic kin being able to pass on their genes, then sacrificing one’s life for a net genetic gain may have been adaptive ancestrally.
...
For the mathematically disinclined, this can all be translated rather straightforwardly as follows: People are most likely to commit suicide when their direct reproductive prospects are discouraging and, simultaneously, their continued existence is perceived, whether correctly or incorrectly, as reducing inclusive fitness by interfering with their genetic kin’s reproduction. Importantly, deCatanzaro, as well as other independent researchers, have presented data that support this adaptive model.
Most people who kill themselves actually lived better-than-average lives. Suicide rates are higher in nations with higher standards of living than in less prosperous nations; higher in US states with a better quality of life; higher in societies that endorse individual freedoms; higher in areas with better weather; in areas with seasonal change, they are higher during the warmer seasons; and they’re higher among college students that have better grades and parents with higher expectations.
Baumeister argues that such idealistic conditions actually heighten suicide risk because they often create unreasonable standards for personal happiness, thereby rendering people more emotionally fragile in response to unexpected setbacks. So, when things get a bit messy, such people, many of whom appear to have led mostly privileged lives, have a harder time coping with failures. “A large body of evidence,” writes the author, “is consistent with the view that suicide is preceded by events that fall short of high standards and expectations, whether produced by past achievements, chronically favorable circumstances, or external demands.” For example, simply being poor isn’t a risk factor for suicide. But going rather suddenly from relative prosperity to poverty has been strongly linked to suicide. Likewise, being a lifelong single person isn’t a risk factor either, but the transition from marriage to the single state places one at significant risk for suicide. Most suicides that occur in prison and mental hospital settings occur within the first month of confinement, during the initial period of adjustment to loss of freedom. Suicide rates are lowest on Fridays and highest on Mondays; they also drop just before the major holidays and then spike sharply immediately after the holidays. Baumeister interprets these patterns as consistent with the idea that people’s high expectations for holidays and weekends materialize, after the fact, as bitter disappointments.
https://veryayshun.blogspot.com/2012/06/httpwww.html
https://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1881384,00.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parents-peers-children/
HARRIS: They’ve expanded rather than changed. I’ve filled in some holes. A few years after the first edition of The Nurture Assumption was published, I realized that the theory proposed in that book, Group Socialization Theory, was incomplete. It does a good job of explaining socialization the way children acquire the behaviors, skills and attitudes approved by their culture but a poor job of explaining personality development. As children become socialized, their behavior becomes more similar to that of their same-sex peers. But differences in personality don’t go away—if anything, they widen. Group Socialization Theory doesn’t explain, for example, why identical twins have different personalities, even if they’re reared in the same home and belong to the same peer group. That’s the puzzle I tackled in No Two Alike. The expanded version of the theory is based on the idea that the human mind is modular and that it consists of a number of components, each designed by evolution to perform a specific job, and that three different mental modules are involved in social development. The first deals with relationships, including parent-child relationships. The second handles socialization. The third enables children to work out a successful strategy for competing with their peers, by figuring out what they are good at.
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1589285737018822656
