The advantage
If our bodies purpose is to propagate our genes, then there must be some correlation between the advantage of genes and their species' behavior.
As far as a gene is concerned, its alleles are its deadly rivals, but other genes are just a part of its environment, comparable to temperature, food, predators, or companions. The effect of the gene depends on its environment, and this includes other genes. Sometimes a gene has one effect in the presence of a particular other gene, and a completely different effect in the presence of another set of companion genes. The whole set of genes in a body constitutes a kind og genetic climate or background, modifying and influencing the effects of any particular gene.
But now we seem to have a paradox. If building a baby is such an intricate cooperative venture, and if every gene needs several thousands of fellow genes to complete its task, how can we reconcile this with my picture of indivisible genes, springing like immortal chamois from body to body down the ages: the free, untrammeled, and self-seeking agents of life? Was that all nonsense? Not at all. I may have got a bit carried away with the purple passages, but I was not talking nonsense, and there is no real paradox. We can explain this by means of another analogy.
One oarsman on hi sown cannot win the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. He needs eight colleagues. Each one is a specialist who always sits in a particular part of the boat--bow or stroke or cox etc. Rowing the boat is a cooperative venture, but some men are nevertheless better at it than others. Suppose a coach has to choose his ideal crew from a pool of candidates, some specializing in the bow position, others specializing as cox, and so on. Suppose that he make his selection as follows. Every day he puts together three new trial crews, by random shuffling of the candidates for each position, and he makes the three crews race against each other. After some weeks of this it will start to emerge that the winning boat often tends to contain the same individual men. These are marked up as good oarsmen. Other individuals seem consistently to be found in slower crews, and these are eventually rejected. But even an outstandingly good oarsman might sometimes be a member of a slow crew either because of the inferiority of the other members, or because of bad luck--say a strong adverse wind. It is only on average that the best men tend to be in the winning boat.
The oarsmen are genes. The rivals for each seat in the boat are alleles potentially capable of occupying the same slot along the length of a chromosome. Rowing fast corresponds to building a body which is successful at surviving. The wind is the external environment. The pool of alternative candidates is the gene pool. As far as the survival of any one body is concerned, all its genes are in the same boat. Many a good gene gets into bad company, and finds itself sharing a body with a lethal gene which kills the body off in childhood. Then the good gene is destroyed along with the rest. But this is only one body, and replicas of the same good gene live on in other bodies which lack the lethal gene. Many copies of good genes are dragged under because they happen to share a body with bad genes, and many perish through other forms of ill luck, say when their body is struck by lightning. But by definition luck, good and bad, strikes at random, and a gene that is consistently on the losing side is not unlucky; it is a bad gene.
One of the qualities of a good oarsman is teamwork, the ability to fit in and cooperate with the rest of a crew. This may be just as important as strong muscles. As we saw in the case of the butterflies, natural selection may unconsciously 'edit' a gene complex by means of inversions and other gross movements of bits of chromosome, thereby bringing genes that cooperate well together into closely linked groups. But there is also a sense in which genes which are in no way linked to each other physically can be selected for their mutual compatibility. A gene that cooperates well with most of the other genes that it is likely to meet in successive bodies, i.e. the genes in the whole of the rest of the gene pool, will tend to have an advantage.
For example, a number of attributes are desirable in an efficient carnivore's body, among them sharp cutting teeth, the right kind of intestine for digesting meat, and many other things. An efficient herbivore, on the other hand, needs flat grinding teeth, and a much longer intestine with a different kind of digestive chemistry. In a herbivore gene pool, any new gene that conferred on its possessors sharp meat-eating teeth would not be very successful. This is not because meat-eating is universally a bad idea, but because you cannot efficiently eat meat unless you also have the right sort of intestine, and all the other attributes of a meat-eating way of life. Genes for sharp, meat-eating teeth are not inherently bad genes. They are only bad genes in a gene-pool that is dominated by genes for herbivorous qualities.
This is a subtle, complicated idea. It is complicated because the 'environment' of a gene consists largely of other genes, each of which is itself being selected for its ability to cooperate with its environment of other genes.
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Beyond definition
I believe in paradise.
It's not another realm of...
What would you call it?
Bliss and existence.
It's seeing what's already there. Hearing, touching, and feeling the world before us.
"Let there be light"
There's beauty in our perspective, how we survive amidst the chaos.
We simplify it. We define our perception of existence and categorize it into subjects like psychology, astrology, religion, emotion, and law. Nature is our definition of existence.
It's generalizing the properties of existence.
To some, it's the belief in its function. That we must sacrifice our self to it. That if we have faith in it to function as it would, to it's own accord, then there'll be paradise waiting for us.
Not me, I believe in us. That we create paradise in others. It's our hugs, love, handshakes, and kisses that give us purpose. The rest is landscape. The setting of our lives we spend time trying to shape.
It's frivolous.
We need companionship.
Our species doesn't survive as a result of our own capacities, but from the combination of our varied capacities. And more importantly, that we collectively resolve our individual struggles.
Together, we release the burden of the chaos. It's in our darkest of days that they give us our light.
"All for one and one for all"
It's difficult to account for every perspective. And if there's a hierarchy, as there tends to be, then forget it.
Which is why electing a single person to represent our collective perspectives has its disadvantages. There's no doubt that representatives had a useful function when we didn't have the technology to quantify our logic. Or the scientific evidence to prove our perspectives, but that time has past.
Then there's these ancient writings which deduce all perspectives into one. The absolute definition of nature; the creator of everything. It's a convincing and metaphorical personification of nature, but nonetheless, a deduction of perspective.
Our advantage is lost when our behavior is deduced to a limited perspective of nature.
Futhermore, we've been seduced into believing that in order to prevent the tragedy of the commons, we must own a piece of the world. That we're the creators of chaos at ends with our family and friends.
That's their dream: we need a landscape to own.
They stand to profit off it's sale. With every purchase goes to them. Everything we buy is marked-up slave labor. And if we slave away to buy from slaves, what does that make us?
Slaves, lacking an abundance of love and affection. We work for the landscape and buy into our insecurities. That we're ugly, getting old, and we'll die without anything to show for it. Just make it pretty, that'll fix it. Buy something, that'll give us value.
We need our own because it make us worth something. Anything! We're stuck in our heads, unable to express our thoughts. We need walls because nobody gets us. That if we make our own and provide for our children, that we'll have something. There's an option; own more, be important. Except those kids want stimulus and we don't have the time or money. Nobody will provide for them but us. We want them to be safe and healthy, they are proof of our self.
We need to own.
We've taught and learned that perspective.
But all we need is love.
Something that can't be bought.
"It's mine"
The nature of ownership is false. We don't own anything.
It's been burned into our minds, we can own everything, even each other. Get married, own another person's sexuality in exchange for a legally binding share of property.
That can't be right, can it?
Nah! Marriage is about love and the license to prove it. Who really cares about the proportions of property dispersment? Or why some stay committed to a loveless relationship? Or why we give incentives to those who participate in the institution? While homosexual and polyphilia-based relationships don't maintain the integrity of single person ownership. Which means they might share with too many people. They won't have to buy as much. Oh shit! That's down-right criminal. Not to mention dangerous to our economy.
Ah well, they're a minority. Their perspective doesn't count.
We'd like to think we own things, that we can control our locale through ownership. To be without chaos. To be at peace. We bend existence to our perspective, an accord of our own vision. No traffic or death. No waiting in line with the strangers, each and every one of them scheming against us.
Existence will always behave to its own accord, that's something we must accept.
No matter what neighborhood we buy a house in, we can still be robbed, killed, and burned to the ground. Life is temporary, but a thief will always exist if we can steal. Not that these things we own will hold their value very long; it too is temporary. All of it returning it's energy back to the realm of existence.
Everything is temporary.
Nothing belongs to me.
And I will share with my brothers and sisters. I will share with a thief. As there is nothing that separates me from them. I will make paradise among chaos.
We're here in observation of existence.
And it's my nature to make it more pleasant.
Give them a reason
Value motivates behavior.
While our species has evolved to value behaviors beneficial to our survival, we aren't survival focused. Between anorexia, obesity, and smoking; we know counter productive behavior isn't rare.
That being said, there are three basic types of value: accessible, genetic, and adaptive.
Clothes, cars, technology, and other assets have accessible value. Cash being the most fluid of assets, it dominates. Our height, facial structure, skin tone, and hair color come from our genes. These (genotype) values predispose us to our environment. Humor, body language, tonality, habit, and style are adapted values (phenotype) that allow us to succeed in a spectrum of different environments.
"Lights, camera, action"
If you've ever been to a live performance, then you probably know the performers spent hundreds of hours preparing, that their equipment costs thousands of dollars, and several people had to be convinced of their ability prior to them taking stage.
But that's life.
And to some degree, we're all performers, wearing make-up and props to emphasize our value. Anything from push-up bras to cologne, we make choices that give us value on life's stage.
Some of us were "lucky" to be born with a genetic sequence that makes us attractive to the majority. Some of us may be born into a wealthy family, but it's not their money or appearance that makes them desirable, it's the audience. We want to be surrounded and admired for something about us. We want to feel important.
Technically we want the value associated with importance, but we've associated receiving value with being important. Just being the in the limelight is good enough and the rest should fall into place once they start paying attention to us.
"Who are you?"
The values of our culture are made through associations. We see diamonds, that means money, and money means achievement, fame, or status. We see perky breasts, that's an indicator of health, and health means fertility.
But is that what we value?
Is that how we want to be valued?
Once we have money, is that when they'll give us their affection? Is that when they'll rip out the red carpet and escort us to the front of the line? And if so, do we want them to construct their reality toward giving us value for our money?
Is that what will make us happy?
Probably not.
Think of our loved ones. What do they do for us and why? If we thought they wanted to spend time with us because of how we looked or things we bought them, how would we feel?
It depends. If we're business partners trying to earn a buck, they're interested in how we earned our accessible value and we know their intentions. But if they're supposed to be our friend, but not genuinely interested in our personality, its likely to hurt.
We're attracted to specific values.
It's what we want that defines us and our relationships.
"Much to learn, you still have"
We can be desirable based on our adaptive values. Learn what makes you happy (what you want), then show the world. If they don't see it, then we're probably not explaining it well enough. Then it's entirely possible that only we can see the beauty in something; be it funny or insightful.
I'm not suggesting smacking crack off a stripper ass or swinging between chandeliers, but if you can pull it off, do it. If you're a good conversationalist, do that, especially if others enjoy your ideas.
Sometimes it takes a little effort to figure out how two people fit together.
Other times we just click; our perspectives aligned.
Our personality is expressed through those who surround us. It's important for us to find a niche. No comedian is funny to everybody. They're funny to those who understand the environment they criticize. That's okay though, they weren't the target audience.
Explore the stage and the audience. The better we understand our environment and how others see it, the easier it is for us to convey our perspective.
Learn the environment and audience before taking stage.
That's our adaptive value and why it's important to be wrong.
"It's better to give than receive"
We are pleasured by giving and receiving value. Our ability to give value, gives us value. When we give to others, it makes us valuable to them. It makes us important to them. Meaning we need an outlet to express our self to become valuable.
I practice on all audiences, but that's just me.
Whenever we're surrounded by others, it's an opportunity to give value. Try finding enjoyable conversations with everybody. Help a friend move. Take interest in other's interests.
That's how we feel and become valuable. Those around us will react to our interests because we become apart of them. We're working together to make our collective valuable to each other.
On communication
There are certain aspects of modern relationships that are heading towards the unusual.
It's a phenomenon that has never existed before, being able to contact anybody, anytime. Be it that our mom wants to remind us to pick up some cheese from the store or we want to see our niece two thousand miles away, it's possible. For the most part it's a luxury.
Then there are those times when you're faced with unexpected dilemmas. It's not all that serious, but it feels urgent and detrimental to your integrity.
"What's time are you going to be here?"
Ummm, I don't know. When I get there. As quickly as I can given the restraints of traffic and capabilities of my vehicle. I can estimate, but even then, I'll probably be wrong.
Oh I got it, "I'm on the way."
I just left and I still have to pick up some ice.
Meanwhile, I still have to call that girl from the other night. She's either waiting for the call or hoping to never hear from me. Calling immediately may seem... too much. Then again, if she really into me, she might like it. Or wait, let her guess if I am going to call at all and then she'll be relieved when I do, even it's a few days later. No, no, no. That seems intentional, I don't want to...
It goes on and on and on.
Instead, act within your own intentions. If you want to call (or text), then do it. If a single text message or phone call ruins the relationship, then it probably wasn't going anywhere. If it was a mistake (from their perspective), then you still did want you wanted and took action despite their opinion of you.
Our society tends to do the opposite: mirroring. If we call, we want a call back. If a text is returned in two hours, we'll purposely make them wait. Not that it's childish or anything, it is, but there's an underlying reason for it.
It's a method of rewards and punishments. Except we tend to punish more than reward when rewards have been proven to be more effective.
Punishment can lead to a downward spiral of retaliation, with destructive outcomes for everybody involved. The people with the highest total payoffs do not use costly punishment.
David G. Rand
When our friends don't continue with their regular communication pattern after an argument, it's likely they're punishing us. We may still want to be friends, but then want to punish them for punishing us, causing us to reciprocate their behavior. "I'm not going to be the one who calls first, why should I apologize?"
Similarly, romantic relationships are beginning on bitter-sweet terms. Women give their number (reward), but then men don't call for several days (punishment). Or they text her after several days, which isn't exactly the best way to begin a relationship.
That's what's really happening. What's believed to be happening is completely different. The recipient of the number wants to convey value. That they're busy. That something in their life is very important and that by not calling immediately, they lower the value of the person waiting for a call. They want to demonstrate that they're not necessary to their life.
Consider a person who values their position in relation to others, their insecure. They prove that their right. They talk about others negatively. They're envious and jealous. They need others weaknesses to prove their strengths. Some personalities will punish to demonstrate their control of the relationship. They're the master, we're the slaves!
Or are we?
There's the possibility that they're actually very busy. Maybe they don't need this relationship. It's possible, but then what's the purpose of exchanging contacts? There must have been some intention of connecting again.
The point being, if we're intentionally taking action based on their opinion, then we're being inhibited by them. Or alternatively, our action is in response to them. Either way, we're processing our image and we disguise our selves out of fear. Especially with our modern method of communication, it can be interpreted as manipulative or tactile.
Except, it's difficult to say phone calls or texting is tactile. We could be shopping. We may have just had a car accident. We're just busy.
We have a life beyond the cyberspace, that's good. As long as were communicating to reward our relationships, not punish. By rewarding people, it's easier for them to understand what we desire. They can only speculate as to how we wronged us. "Why won't she text me back?" "Why is he mad?" Why, why, why?
It's something about our passive-agressive culture and poor communications skills, along with information lost in the medium, that's causing modern relationships to stray towards the unusual. And it starts with us.
They don't need an explanation as to why we're smiling. It's our frowning that causes them to go into self-reflection and think something is wrong with them.
But what about acting within our own intentions?
Enjoy life by focusing on the positive parts and celebrating it. Don't worry about the rest, they'll catch on.