On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 22:52:29 +0000 (UTC), "John Edser"
 wrote:

>
>r norman  wrote:
>
>> > PF:-
>> >Lifetime situations in which an individual's capacity 
>> >for a sympathetic nervous flight or distressed response 
>> >is being prompted/prodded by some adverse environmental factor(s) 
>> >[prompted/prodded strongly and suddently, 
>> >or weakly in a sustained way with a cumulative result], 
>> >AND the primarily prompted response WOULD 
>> >put the individual in a worse peril 
>> >IF the predicament is allowed 
>> >(or continues to be allowed) 
>> >to electrochemically progress *from* having a sensory 
>> >(and 'preliminary motivational') representation 
>> >*to* a state of alertness/muscular activity/attentiveness.
>> >?
>
>> RN:-
>> It doesn't rhyme and the rhythmic pattern is very weak.
>> I'd give it a C- if only for unusual imagery and word juxtapositions.
>
>JE:-
>IMHO Peter's writing needs to be carefully
>interpreted. I would argue that while I agree
>nobody should have to suffer fools, R. Norman's 
>response was _unnecessarily_ demeaning and 
>quite disingenuous of the spirit of sbe.
>
>Here is my interpretation of Peter's Posting:
>The flight or fight response can
>provide a mal-adaptation. What happens
>when such a situation arises?
>
>Such a situation constitutes an 
>evolutionary theory
>basic because all environments and 
>all individuals change all of the 
>time via simple random processes
>which cannot ever be eliminated 
>from any natural population (note:
>they can be eliminated from just a
>simplified model of such a population).
>
>When a population of conspecies provides
>a larger selective force on fertile
>individuals within one population than any 
>other then the Baldwin effect dominates any other
>selective force. When the "fight or flight"
>response is mostly working between conspecies
>(members of the same species) in the same
>population who are being selected to become more 
>and more fitness mutualised (this means the mean 
>total Darwinian fitness of every associated fertile
>form increases because of a selected for fitness
>association providing organism fitness mutualism 
>and not organism fitness altruism i.e. OFM and 
>_not_ OFA) then the fight or flight response can 
>be extremely mal-adaptive because it can reduce
>levels of exchange between conspecies
>and thus lower everybody's total Darwinian
>fitness in the process.
>
>Regards,
>
>John Edser
>Independent Researcher
>
>PO Box 266
>Church Pt
>NSW 2105
>Australia
>
>edser{at}tpg.com.au
>
>

OK.  Change that to a C+, then.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/8/04 9:33:45 PM