There is no magic that causes adaptation in response to a previous stressor.

There is evidence that man is best suited to roving bands in a problem discovered in the 1960’s.

Knowledge workers began to have mental breaks while using the first prototypes of close-spaced workstations.

Subliminal Sight and Peripheral Vision Reflexes had operated in those “special conditions” to cause the mental events.

The cubicle was created to deal with this phenomenon of physiology.

This is a normal, usually harmless, feature of all physiology.

It would never have happened in early human history before man learned to build structures and make tools.

There is no behavior that would have caused early may to sit for hours each day concentrating while there was repeating detectable movement in peripheral vision.

See the Chaco Canyon page at VisionAndPsychosis.Net.

However, the picture gets more interesting from there. Hameroff’s & Penrose’s theory of consciousness requires only a very simple brain or neural network, and thus extends the potential for consciousness to a far wider range of organisms. For various reasons that would take too long to explain here, consciousness in organisms including humans is not continuous but is intermittent, occurring in discrete intervals driven by the “clock speed” of the brain or neural network.

–

As for ethnocentrism, though most of us here take a dim view of the dominant culture, we are after all using Western science and logical systems as the primary standards for evaluating objective truth. This hardly invalidates the basic premise, but it does lead to the question of whether certain things are not just arbitrarily valued by certain cultures but instead have a value that is universal or nearly so.

That is, in an objective sense, elements of culture can be ranked as better or worse in terms of stated purposes and in terms of consequences. This leads inexorably to comparisons in which some cultures are found “better” and others “worse” in a general sense. We should not shy away from saying as much when it is called for.

1. Humans are social animals.
2. We took the whole “culture” thing to a new extreme, so our behavior has to be both adaptable and deeply felt–hence, the powerful hold of acculturation. Allows learned behaviors and attitudes to be nearly as deep as genetic reflexes.
3. Egalitarian groups are an important, defining characteristic of our evolution.

People may or may not be ethnocentric. You and I are not. Cultures, however, are always ethnocentric. It’s a universal among all cultures. Individuals who opt out of that mindset are a fringe. In a particularly volatile situation, they might be able to be a catalyst to tip things one way or the other, but in general they are too marginal to have any major effect on the course of history.

I agree, linear evolution and humans’ place on the food chain could definitely use some treatment. I probably won’t add ethnocentrism to the Thirty Theses, but an article of its own is certainly justified.

Ethnocentrism is a universal among all human cultures; it helps keep them together as a culture.

Interesting, but I’d like to see you expound on this some more. What about cultural revolution? Where does cultural change fit in with ethnocentrism? For instance, I’m completely disgusted with our culture — am I, personally, still ethnocentric? Or are you speaking about cultures in general? I can concede that “our” culture has no lack of ethnocentrism, and thus perpetuates itself readily, but where do those who seek change fit in? As the universality of ethnocentrism is a central thesis of yours, perhaps you could do an entire post on it… (add it to your thirty theses somewhere?)

Also, in your refined version of this post, I’d be interested to see you contradict the common myth that evolution is not linear. While you’re at it, the idea that humans are at the top of the food chain and thus superior to other beings could use a good debunking as well.

Well written post, keep them coming.