tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post3488105957380323475..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Brian Davey — Mismodelling human beings – “rational economic men” in love, politics and everyday lifemike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-54009486683290106602017-07-22T19:47:07.527-04:002017-07-22T19:47:07.527-04:00And whilst riffing on cultural systems and Attachm...And whilst riffing on cultural systems and Attachment Theory here's a hunter-gather/agriculturist tribe's take on human emotional wiring where kinship is whatever the tribe decides to make it and to hell with consanguinity they'll go with the wiring:-<br /><br /><br />“The Navajo never mention common substance in finding or invoking kinship ties or norms. Kinship is defined in terms of the acts of giving birth and sharing sustenance. The primary bond in the Navajo kinship system is the mother-child bond, and it is in this bond that the nature and meaning of kinship become clear. In Navajo culture, kinship means intense, diffuse, and enduring solidarity, and this solidarity is realized in actions and behavior befitting the cultural definitions of kinship solidarity. Just as a mother is one who gives life to her children through birth and sustains their life by providing them with loving care, assistance, protection, and sustenance, kinsmen are those who sustain each other's life by helping one another, protecting one another, and by the giving or sharing of food and other items of subsistence. Where this kind of solidarity exists, kinship exists; where it does not, there is no kinship.”<br /> <br />(Witherspoon 1975, Pages 21-22, “Navajo Kinship and Marriage”.)<br /><br />From Wikipedia “Nurture Kinship” topic.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurture_kinship<br />Schofieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11631047494218956929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-2720437659485696372017-07-22T16:59:14.784-04:002017-07-22T16:59:14.784-04:00@ Schofield
Interesting paper. thanks for the l...@ Schofield <br /><br />Interesting paper. thanks for the link.<br /><br />I wondered whether Rousseau would be cited. He is:<br /><br /><i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) agreed with Hobbes and Locke that actors are self- interested, but he also emphasized that actors are naturally limited in their wants and are empathic toward others, so that actors in the presociety state of nature lead solitary, peaceful, and productive lives (Rousseau, 1994). As members of a potential society improve their productivity through interaction, increased productivity generates pride in comparison with others. Interdependence allows for the creation of new products, which in turn produces insatiable new desires, as well as the desire to control others. Rousseau argued that the need to resolve conflicts that emerges from the unequal distribution of property leads to the formation of the social contract and its resultant government to keep peace between men, a peace that primarily benefits the already powerful. For Rousseau (1994), “the first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, to whom it occurred to say this is mine and found people sufficiently simple to believe him, was the true founder of civil society” (p. 60). Thus, Rousseau had a more equivocal view of the role of government in creating stability than either Hobbes or Locke.</i>Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-87319507790105741962017-07-22T16:47:19.206-04:002017-07-22T16:47:19.206-04:00Neo-Conservatism/Neo-Liberalism is just a cultural...Neo-Conservatism/Neo-Liberalism is just a cultural system at the end of the day and a poor one at that because it fails to understand how negative and positive human affective emotions work together:-<br /><br />www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23082093Schofieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11631047494218956929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22715183201467744822017-07-22T13:11:37.913-04:002017-07-22T13:11:37.913-04:00There's also the success of the USA being attr...There's also the success of the USA being attributed to the extreme individualism practised in the USA and then that philosophy being exported across the globe using the usual correlation assumed to be causation routine. <br /><br />The question is was the success of the USA down to extreme individualism, or was it because that individualism was suppressed temporarily by being forced into two world wars and responding to a massive depression. <br /><br />The British took the same approach of course. Just because the British happened to be the first to industrialise and conquer the world, we assumed that was because we were just better people with a better system than anybody else. Then we ploughed into World War I and declined thereafter.<br /><br />Is this just another of the cycles of empire coming to an end state? I've said for a while that the USA looks like it is in the same state of operations that the UK was in Edwardian times. World War I brought the issue to a head for the UK. <br /><br /><br /><br />NeilWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11565959939525324309noreply@blogger.com