The dual inheritance theory, also known as the theory of coevolution states that individuals and groups evolve with their environment and their associated clan bound by their genetic predispositions. The clan may have its own language, culture and other societal characteristic that will influence the outcome of an individual in terms of his personality traits, thought patterns and instinctual habits, or implicit responses. The people, it can be inferred from this hypothesis, evolve as part and parcel of their societal constructs, such as culture, and its many underlying mechanisms of interactions and reciprocation with anthropological and biological constructs such as genetics. The underlying workings may be complex but the upper-level manifestations can be empirically observed and easily correlated with a certain clan. In such event a member be separated from his clan, he will naturally seek out to his ilk driven by his own reward system. Yes, you read that right, genetic factors differently predispose people to life experiences. Whether its abusing substance or love-making, your brain responds differently to the same neurotransmitters and chemicals in your bloodstream simply because genetics compels them to be utilized and reciprocated differently by the body.
the internal reward system supremely concedes any external factors
In this short opinion post, I will use anecdotes from my life to personally validate the coevolution theory. The internal, neurotransmitter-based reward system supremely concedes any external influences to behavior, and individuals predisposed with certain biological attributes from their clan will naturally, over the discourse of time, seek to his kind and companionship. While this is the vastly observed case, not all do this, like me for instance. This post is dedicated to understanding why some selective individuals may liberate completely from their roots leaving no fragment of their natural identity left with them. Continue reading
The United States coincidentally happens to be my dream place of citizenship. If this is bombshell news – you are alien to me! The road to naturalization is a rather long and obstacle-ridden one but with sheer determination and work, I don’t think anything can really be that far from being realized. In today’s installment, I want to briefly (maybe) state my reasons behind my favorism of this country in particular – and the cultural and social factors that shape my infatuation with this so-called land of the free and brave citizen.
a low-context culture coupled with youthful, individualistic attitudes readily appeals to the wanderer with no cultural deadweight
First and probably the single most important factor would be the prevalence of an overall low-context culture. The United States is a young country, culturally. Unlike its southern neighbor, Mexico or Europe – the US hadn’t matured into a unique cultural identity just yet and is still in the infancy of its development. Low-context cultures are distinctly observed in urban and ethnically diverse regions of the world – where the traditional ideological pragmatism of the everyday folk cannot be observed. So why do I favor a low-context culture? My reasons are two-fold. One, these cultures are often very explicit in stating and adhering to protocol. Per Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, America likes to avoid uncertainty through a strict adherence to protocol. Deadlines are rigid and there’s little effort reserved toward trying to accommodate people who may not be able to adhere as easily. This translates to an introvert’s paradise for asocial people like me tend to have a rather tough time participating in cultural pragmatism – and without pragmatism, nobody is inherently required to know or do anything to function in society, making this reason number two. Continue reading
I am a firm believer in the notion of culture existing as the practical realization of religion. Religion, in this context, may extend to other practical realizations of societal order such as the tribe-like settlements of the early day, empires, and modern political systems. Culture plays a vital role in religious indoctrination of its clan, and without it some pragmatic religions would become obsolete. Inbreeding and collectivism therefore emerged out of tribe-like settlements of early humans that went on to safeguard and transcend cultural doctrines and operatives through the generations. Some cultures moved past those conventions while others didn’t – this post will be dedicated to understanding the evolution of present-day cultures adapting to the ever-changing needs of man and the need for such culture.
[Also included in this section is a lengthy introduction that will be foundational to upcoming sections. I might seem to use culture and society interchangeably, but society should refer to a people’s culture, accounting for their demography while culture is an ideologically constituent part of a demography. Cultural ideology on a whole encompasses the theological and philosophical realms.]
An innate desire to creatively and artistically express oneself is among the fundamental of human wills. I’ve often emphasized my theory of cognition and religion and culture being as one closely woven net, almost like an inseparable fabric. As a result of my insistence of the mentioned, I’ve managed to offend many people. Culture encompasses the various demographic intricacies operating in one’s immediacy – these include popular theological and philosophical ideas, geography and race and complex environmental feedback mechanisms. Religion refers to the majority religion among a demography that influences their theological ideology as mentioned above. Cognition, in this context, is defined as an individual’s ability to perform tasks of reading and writing, comprehending and reproducing information effectively and efficiently with respect to some statistical benchmark. Like gravity, IQ and other metrics of cognitive ability are all relative – and it wouldn’t do justice to compare the IQ of a chimpanzee with a gorilla. Just like the animals, I believe every civilization, over time, with the aforementioned factors of complexity, developed a standard cognition among their people that we call today as average – like the international average IQ of 100. Inductively reasoning from present-day IQs of many civilizations might be key to understanding their culture and religions.
Metrics such as the popular IQ measure an individual’s ability to perform specialized tasks by narrowing down with the specifics at hand. It is iterative and systematic. You could train your brain with IQ tests for a couple weeks leading up to your counsellor’s appointment and pull off a few 10 or more points on your existing IQ. Such cognitive metrics measure how well your brain has specialized – from the time of birth, that is. I believe as one gets older and leaves childhood, IQ is no longer a complete and holistic measure of one’s cognition. Therefore, a fair measure of brain function would be accomplished through divergent reasoning. Divergent tests measure the collocially-called creativity metric – also a statistical measure of how well an individual’s brain is divisive. As one progresses in age with experience, this divergent and rather chaotic type of cognition manifests into convergent cognition. Everything from the simple essay prompts to analytical problem solving can be employed in the task of measuring this lesser-known type of cognition.
This likely will be my last time discussing religion. Unlike the last two times where I directly spoke out against certain religions and how they manage to work in contemporary times, today’s installment will be more on understanding why they work – a question that will require a philosophical analysis of this concept. Our discussion will be focused on exploring why religion might have been necessary and maybe still is. Later, we will get to understanding some shared ideologies among religions.
Where do we start? A new World Order? Sure, let’s start here – despite your forced consent that would’ve otherwise made no difference if you’d answered. The fundamentalists of religion saw the state of political chaos – the anarchy – invading our civilization as the people grew. With more people came more demands to meet their individual and collective needs. People would then give in to their animalistic instincts – their innate desires and ambition – and that would soon overcome any order of the people. Imagine a world without law and order, a world where ethics and moral were foreign ideas – this is exactly the kind of place religious fundamentalists realized and saw. In fear, they envisioned a word of order. A world where man’s innate desires were suppressed for the greater benefit of his fellows – and indirectly himself. The fundamentalist knew order cannot result from the reign of another man – because man’s ambition of a control of his territory would destroy his obedience – and conflict would soon prevail. The solution was to device something of an outside entity – a supreme and perfect being in all regards of man. An entity that lives and grows in apparent truth with the belief of man and other men.
Resources come at a premium – and anyone from a third-world can perfectly relate to this. Nothing is free. In a world survived by man’s innate desires, it would have been hard to ensure fair distribution of vital resources such as food. Also, as anyone who watches the National Geographic can describe – these desires are often lawless in modern hindsight. Animals aggressively secure their territory, their food and their potential mate at any costs. They fight among themselves and among others and form clans – where they venture together into unknown territories to conquer or mark as their own. The fundamentalist knew man was no different from his ancestor and such instincts would soon creep in as they outgrew in numbers eventually leading them to their own destruction. A need for a system of order was in dire necessity. A system to channel man’s own emotions – that he has been naturally predisposed with – against his unknowing will for the benefit of other men and himself. A concept of religion was therefore required.
This post should help blow off some steam.
I don’t like to talk about this often – about my parents’ ethnicity and language. My parents are of Tamilian ancestry and they speak the very rudimentary language of Tamil. If you are some lifestyle blogger who’s here to read something wonderful about some exotic, far-away land and its people, I’m sorry. You certainly would not want to be here.
There’s so much I wish I could tell you – or more honestly, want you to see because the things I’ve seen and experienced can only be believed through physical sight and are of such extraordinary magnitude that it only can do justice. This is one of those situations that some fine poets will not be able to adequately capture.
Some cultures are backward. Some people are disgusting. Some languages are inadequate. Some demographics only exist to rot! Continue reading
The feminist movement used to have good meaning and respect back in circa 1960 through early 2000s and some forms of it still does – but a third wave of it has manifested in some Western nations – almost a kind of social cancer as it can be best described, where emotionally unstable women go out and protest against an unjust society they think they live in to bring matters into resolution. An essay by Malcolm Gladwell in his book What The Dog Saw discussed the role of second-wave feminism in ridding the corporate world from a culture of male chauvinism – challenging the corporal agendas on feminine products such as hair colouring. Today, feminist women often feel that the manly world is treating them unfairly and feel like they’re still the victims to a bigger patriarchy. It has come to nothing short of emotionally charged passive-aggressiveness directed at perfectly innocent and law-abiding men and sometimes even women – women who don’t share their views. Only so much talk about being a progressive!
Misinterpretation is the most deadly of human sins -Lester del Rey
The feminist rhetoric of the modern day – circa 2000 and beyond – has been calling for a cultural appropriation of obese/physically unattractive women, change of male psychology so we start seeing all women as equally attractive, a change in everyday language by modifying fundamental linguistic constructs involving genders, inclusion of women in STEM fields, equal pay, and to do away with patriarchy, rape culture, and male violence in society. Now hoping that I’ve adequately covered their prime objectives, let’s get down to business, trying to demystify – one after the other – what is true and what is some made-up conspiracy and get into knowing this miserable society that we live in everyday as described by feminists. My usage of feminist(s) and the occasional feminazi here and after should refer exclusively to third-wave feminists.
Someone, somewhere is bound to experience this very human form of isolation at some time in their life. It’s natural and nothing to be ashamed of – be you a man or a woman. As I was scrolling through my Facebook today, I saw this post about how loneliness is killing people in rich countries. For a moment there I was lost, pondering why the first-world citizen would simply die younger that their third-world counterpart – one who’d probably endured more hardships detrimental to his health and eventual longevity. The whole notion would seem counter-intuitive to most people and I get it – because we aren’t taught to see it that way. Loneliness however, has deeper roots than what the surface will readily show us.
economic socialism and social collectivism compromises productivity of the individual while promoting a very human necessity toward good health
Having experienced severe bouts of loneliness by myself, I just wanted to jump to the tautological conclusion that people get lonely because they are lonely. They lack human interaction due to their poor stance in society (like being that weirdo) – that throws their neurotransmitters out of whack leading to depression and a host of mental illnesses. Loneliness, I feel, is really just a very vague descriptor for it can have more or less sinister causes. But if you spare some thought for it, you’d see loneliness is connected to other elements in one’s immediacy.
Remember the last time (or maybe the only time) I had to end a post on short notice because of something requiring more attention? Well. That is now over and it’s been several hours since that distraction and I wanted to add more to the second tangent – one that attempted to answer culture exploring the fundamental factors guiding culture and people of some background – geographical (I won’t say cultural now because we’re tackling its evolution).
Talking about cultures and peoples at this time can be tricky as we had already grown used to, probably from several generations back to view culture and people as an entity, a singularity. And culture as one that had showed itself into the people and their minds somewhat magically, but science would say otherwise. I would say culture has evolved with the people on some common ground – like geography or ethnicity. Culture essentially is the manifestation of the physical environment into something that helps some people adapt and conquer. The differences in culture can be attributed to the local environmental factors. And remember, these environmental factors can extent to outside the natural environment like say, population. Continue reading