Update: Ten Types of Human by Dexter Dias
Absolutely worth the time! The title may be off-putting because it’s gimmicky- but the contents of the book are not. He uses the Ten Types format as an outline to discuss, as he puts it:
Just as a side note I wanted to point out that the identification/existence of one type of pattern (in this particular case: impulse) does not lead to the automatic exclusion of others. Different impulses can and do co-exist and often compete. Care, competition, destruction- all human characteristics. All underpinned by nature.
My Mazamet 
Sounds like a fascinating read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It really is because it may explain a whole lot. If we can break down the programming of the mind into: if you open door number one you survive and if you open door number 2 you do not- it changes how one sees the mechanics of the world. Including how we see people in different/opposing ideological camps. We’re all just trying to be “The Fittest”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just a quick reminder that ‘fittest’ in evolutionary terms means successful genetic reproduction to the second generation. This may sound like a quibble but consider:
I was going to complain about the use of the term ‘the mind’ in place of what is the case: the brain… a physical organ undergoing the same evolutionary pressures as the thumb or sense of smell. Fortunately, you did address this somewhat by explaining that the mind is “what the brain does” but this emergent property is only one of many produced from this organ and I’m not sure that as an emergent property it fits into the evolutionary category, meaning I’m not sure how one can claim this property itself is subject in any inheritable genetic way to the fitness of natural selection that is somehow distinguishable – and knowable – from the brain’s genetic evolution. Speaking of ‘modules’ about certain brain functions and emergent properties is a bit of a throwback to Chomsky’s contribution that labelled these as ‘devices’. This is purely metaphorical language. And metaphors, we have to remember, are not heritable ‘things’ expressed genetically and so can have no element of fitness no matter how attractive or useful certain metaphorical language might be. And that’s why speaking about the mind as if it can inherit a kind of memetic ‘program’ is moving away from science into the realm of politically charged social studies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’ll be pleased to know I don’t disagree with any of that- and haven’t become some new age crazy person 😛
My main interest is in what you touch on in your first paragraph: The concept of fitness, which is, in and of itself, a success story. So if non-reproduction is failure, what psycho-social mechanisms lead to success? Which are we born with? Do babies refuse food or cry for food?
LikeLike
Non reproduction is a ‘failure’ only in the sense of furthering the genetic pool. It’s a very narrow idea but central to what evolution means: reproductive ‘success’ to the second generation. But as we begin to pan back and see the bigger picture, we now encounter other aspects of how evolution works: kin selection (and species bias) and all the behaviours that further’s the ‘success’ of a related genetic pool.
The problem I often encounter about evolution is a misunderstanding that social and cultural behaviours themselves are somehow of an evolutionary ‘benefit’ because they are traditional or have been around a long time. The assumption is that these must by necessity be able to further a genetic pool when, in fact, many social and cultural practices are not and do not accomplish this but are a hindrance to adaptable change that is of clear ‘benefit’ (ie women’s healthcare). That’s why I always mention the genetic aspect, that until one can causally link a specific genetic change through inheritance, we’re not talking evolutionary science for changes of behaviours that over time appear to be of benefit. Evolution does not necessarily overpower social engineering and one of the most powerful aspects of our brains is its ability to adapt behaviour to suit the environment. .
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re approaching this from different angles. You’d like an argument built from the ground up and I’m proposing dissection 😀
My question is: what are the psycho-social mechanisms at play which affect successful reproduction? When a male selects a car or a house, is that all one is doing?
I think in this case we can’t build the sort of argument you’d like, but we can, on the basis of pattern frequency, infer a scenario. Who gets paid the most in society? Who is most sought after sexually? What role does optimisation play in the human mind? Did we stop with the wheel and fire?
LikeLike
“Who is most sought after sexually?” That’d be me. It’s a rough life, but hey, someone’s gotta do it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
P.S. Have you considered the *inheritance* from a more basic level? As in, the attraction is not to the blondest, but to (simply) someone with a basic X characteristic (whatever that may entail, perhaps the Alpha in the pack)?
That’s where I think math and programming comes in. We’re not really talking about what is “best”, but what satisfies a very simplistic method of categorisation. As is for example the case of attraction to symmetry.
LikeLike
I’m trying very hard to be fit, but the pizza and ice cream I love to eat are making it damned difficult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wonder if the types reflect symbolic archetypes?
LikeLiked by 1 person
To a degree, but much more so patterns of behaviour. An archetype is established by basing an identity on a pattern, although the frequency of patterns is rarely sufficient (in the case of human behaviour) to justify archetypes as we know them.
The idea of an archetypal person of any nationality, for example, is a total fiction. The sample is too large and the behaviours too distinct 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then of course the concept of archetypes predates much “modern” scientific thought and research.
I have always been interested in allegory, archetypes and symbolism in art.
I certainly do not fall into any particular archetype moi-meme
LikeLiked by 1 person
Archetypes are descriptions of common meaning, which is why myths are full of them. Archetypical characters reflect a part of each of us; the trick is to leaarn to see oursleves in them and personalize the experience we are being taught! That’s why myths are interactive and timeless.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I concur, next time I post one of my narrative symbolism paintings with archetypes I’ll let you know. Currently working on the Jester/fool
LikeLike
The jester is an interesting case because it’s in its own special category. It qualifies as a profession (comedian), and as a social role (like a class clown), amongst other things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely the anomaly of the wise fool, which of course the “court jester” was. And he could get away with saying all manner of inappropriate things.
LikeLiked by 1 person