I'm reading Brian Hare in his attempt to debunk survival of the fittest as the dominant force in the beginning of humanity and replace it with survival of the friendliest which focuses on early humans who invented language to work together against bullies--the fittest. He makes some very strong points which made me think a lot but then I thought why are there only two choices? Fittest or Friendliest? How about survival of the cleverest? How about survival of the most manipulative? And where does survival of the most attractive come into play? In the end they all add up to survival of the fittest which doesn't in this day and age have anything to do with physical strength. Who needs muscles when you have missiles? Or can rally millions of "followers" with the click of your thumbs? Isn't being friendly a form of fitness as in a tool for playing the game? And in 2023 is it really survival or domination?

And what fuels the dominant? The neediest? The ones who get their self-esteem from the dominant by aligning themselves with the "winners". And what is the greatest tool of dominance? Victimhood? The hunter claiming to be the hunted. Or the Mormon favorite, "persecuted". It works wonders. The needy will root for you and carry you! We see this playing out on a grand stage even now when we should be cheering on the Robin Hoods rather than the ones's claiming to be the Robin Hoods.



Which brings up parasociality which is a hot topic today and many consider a new thing brought on by the rapid advancement of technology as our iPhones replaced heroin and other addictive substances as our opiate. But is it so new?

I'm looking at some images of ancient murals over three thousand years old depicting birds in ancient Egypt. One is a pigeon of all things. Tickled me that and made me laugh that many call them flying rats. These bird murals were in the North Palace in Amarna, the then capitol, during the reign of Akenaten. This was situated far from the crowded areas of Amarna and offered a quiet retreat for the royal family. Royals do need their retreats. Commoners can be so tiring. That is the main reason I like my retreats as well.

Birds aside, what struck me was that there were already royal families 3,300 years ago. Humans already had to have one. Royals have been so very high on the list for so many millennia. Of course here in America we think we don't have royals. But with a lot of recent attention on our extreme case as a nation plagued with parasocial-itis, you have to wonder. Americans make a good case for the apparently deep human need to have someone around who is better than you. Whom you hang on their words, admire their style, their looks, and dare not cross as you consider yourself associated with them and eventually develop a deeply one sided relationship that is paramount in your life.


2023 and we are exploring space and curing diseases and making the most of our assault weapons while as a species a few of us are accomplishing the spectacular. And yet we have royal families? Decorative royal families. Rich royal families. Country running royal families. Bloodline trumps all! Survival of the Perfect Plasma?

So I'm reading this guy Farley who says this "falls under the label of “parasocial behavior,” which can create a one-sided relationship in which someone becomes attached to a person without actually interacting with them in any meaningful way. Parasocial behavior could include becoming emotionally invested in your favorite television show or sports team — or, say, in the lives and dramas of the royal family." Or the Gerontocracy? Goes way beyond entertainment.

Researchers have found, for example, that having a parasocial relationship with a media personality can influence an individual's:
Political view
Voting decisions
Purchasing behavior
Attitudes about gender stereotypes
Trust in various groups of people, such as scientists

In short, that list is all the things church leaders influence as "your royal family." If Mormon church leaders aren't the equivalent of royal families, I don't know what is. The reverence, the fawning, the quoting, the doting, and even, yea verily, the voting. My father voted exactly as ETB would have and for that very reason. If only Russ would wear ermine for GC it would be a bit more clear. A scepter is always a nice touch as well. Isn't The Ensign a Fanzine? Isn't the Second Anointing the equivalent of a Knighthood. You are now a Sir or a Dame of the Mormon Realm. Well done my good and faithful servant.

God save the Kings!


But for me and my house: "God bless the child that's got his own."

Interesting topic and post, D & D.

Whatever works best to get in the gene pool was rewarded genetically. It might be force (rape), altruism, team work, bullying, trickery, etc., that allowed people to give their own genes a shot. Interestingly, birds have lots of tricks too. Some are devoted monogamous parents, some are downright tricky and devious getting their genetic advantage. This can relate to potential biological origins for our concepts for good and evil but I digress.

Humans throughout history have looked for a "strong man" (aka royal, emperor, tribe leader, etc.) who they thought could make sure they get resources be it through malevolent or benevolent ways. There is a reason religions openly use the metaphor calling people sheep.

The need for the strong man. Of course. And without a leader there is no strength of an organization.

I think what is troubling me so much these days is how many "strong men" there are to pick and choose from. To find the one that best aligns with your olio of a gene pool that fosters your own selfish desires and inspires the thought that you are if not on the winning team, at least on the team who is really right.

But the royalty thing goes to the ultimate strong man--a god-- and makes it more.

Is there any more one sided relationship, more parasocial, than the one you have with your God. The relationship where you are convinced that this God who is never seen, never speaks, knows every hair on your head, cares deeply about you, and lovingly hopes you can kiss his holy behind well enough to escape his punishment, his wrath.

At least in our parasocial relation ships with our human gods we get to see them on the news, or magazines, or TikTok or hear them on twitter. They do engage the senses. But with God we have to convince ourselves that we are feeling him. Feeling the spirit. We claim that this feeling is different from the hair standing on end in a scary movie, or the chills we feel watching a tender moment, or the terror of a near miss in an accident, or the calm the breaking ocean offers.

But Mormons take it a step further claiming their feelings are so strong they "know". If only the Mormons were the only ones caught in that trap. Mormons aren't the only ones with burning bosoms.

And you wrapped in my favorite topic du jour, dagny, the gene pool. Thanks. I like the ones I got mostly. I'm very concerned about other people's genes, ha ha.

> Whatever works best to
> get into the gene pool   
> is rewarded genetically.

    This is one of my favorite topics!  I'm sure my pride is inordinate, but I'll still claim it...  I came up with a theory while still in high school that I'm quite proud of, despite any possibility of ever having it proven or disproven:

"Strength rules, but wisdom seduces."

    The high school perspective is easy to understand:  Who gets the girls?  Had society not put the hammer down on polygamy, the sports stars would get ALL the girls.  And why not, once it's recognized that who fathers their babies really does matter?

    So there I sat in study hall, wondering how a second-rate male animal, which I was/am, gets to breed?

    I figured out that it's because second-rate male humans, blessed with the power of speech (severely lacking in most other animals), came up with the concept of "love."

    Do star quarterbacks or the sons of the very rich need to say "I love you!" in order to get a cheerleader or into the sack?  They can rack up 'sacks' with little to no effort, such that "falling in love" is superfluous to their needs.

    But for sure, the shy math wizard who adores the girl who didn't make the cut for the cheerleading squad or comes from a good family, has to not only say it but he has to prove it.  And if and when he jumps through enough hoops and solves a sufficient number of life's equations, the young lady can convince herself that allowing him into her life is 'special', and if he works hard enough, the two of them can have a good life.

    So I came up with the notion that "Love" is what 'lesser' human beings use to excuse themselves for breeding with less than the cream of the crop.  And that's on both sides of the equation.  Women had to agree to fall into this less-than-the-best equation.



Here's how I imagine it all started...

    Thor, the biggest brute in the tribe, took women as he found them, and they were all cool with it because when Thor went out hunting, he always brought home the bacon.  And he had a couple of sycophants, almost as big and tough as him, with whom he shared the hunting and the women; cooperation had entered the equation.

    That left me, smaller, leaner, wearing glasses, allergic to grassland pollens, wandering around on the fringes of the tribe, making a go of it by doing pest control and latrine services...

    The horny lad that I was, I needed to come up with a way to get a girl to notice me, and more importantly, to let me cuddle with her.  But no girl in her right mind wanted the likes of me, when Thor and his ilk were in the offing!

    So I came up with 'love'!  It made mating 'special' because "we" were special, something Thor didn't offer.  Yes, he had the Best Girl in the tribe, but there was no need to be True to her since, as the provider, she needed him, he didn't need her.  And the less than the Best Girls had needs to fill, although they might not have known if I hadn't told them . . .

    In preaching 'love,' emphasis is heavy on the part about the allure of each partner being special to the other.  (Obviously, JoJu never understood that part.)  And to be fair, some men try to stay faithful, but alas, hormones just don't have any morals.

    So sophomore year in a high school study hall, I figured out how things really work...  You're welcome.

>>>"Strength rules, but wisdom seduces."

Agree. I went for the wisdom guys myself.

Unfortunately horrible creeps can be in either category.

"Horrible creeps" are the norm.

We all, male, female, etc., have it in us.

Virtually all the ghawds humankind has come up with have been or are horrible creeps; we are what we worship.

And don't tell me that Jesus wasn't a horrible creep to the majority view, or at least creepy ... Who do you know who has given everything away and followed him?

Somehow this reminds me of the old saying, "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a berry. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad."

Seems like Survival of the Charming may have been in play for EOD. Cuz after the bacon is eaten, the amusing stories need to be told around the campfire.