[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Mad SCO Disease

gepr at tempusdictum.com gepr at tempusdictum.com
Wed Jun 30 23:31:15 UTC 2004


Russell Senior writes:
 > My point is that there isn't an obvious outward sign to indicate that
 > one person is a better shot (or tactically superior in some other way)
 > than you.  Therefore, "display behavior" is unlikely to suffice to
 > avoid actual combat as it often is in animals.  They may simply
 > retreat to behind a tree and shoot you from there.

I think it will.  It's just that the properties of the particular
animal change with the various behaviors under consideration.

For example, when looking at a large muscular person, I typically
believe that they could really hurt me if they got a hold on me.
But, when looking at a smaller, less muscular person, I have to 
examine how they walk and where their eyes focus in order to judge
whether they could hurt me if they were in close proximity.

And for those of you who won't listen because I'm using the word 
"hurt", the same is true of poker, raquet ball, soccer, persuasion
in a professional context, etc.

This "display behavior" is everywhere and has many facets.  To say
that it is unlikely to suffice to avoid combat under one circumstance
is a stretch and I think you'd have to study it in depth to come to
such a conclusion.

One simple hypothesis I would have is related to your question about
how gun-bearers' behavior will change between when their bearing the
gun and when they're not.  It is pretty common amongst the city
dwellers I've known that they can spot a tourist pretty easily.  They
cite things like, looking up or around alot, hesitating at
intersections, carrying cameras or maps, etc.

One trick that my sister suggested when I was visiting her in NYC
was to walk "confidently", don't meander, and be fairly sure of your
route before you leave the house.  Now, there's no objective evidence
that _I_ know of that justifies this; but, let's just run with it.

Why would this work?  It works because it is a form of "display 
behavior".

If you wanted to convince a collection of opponents in a debate, 
for example, would you immediately go for the "strongest" debater
in that group?

These things work.  And the same would be true of gun-bearing people.
_If_ bearing a gun gives a person more confidence, then, that alone,
as display behavior, might prevent the person from being mugged or
attacked.... just like when a cat arches it's back and sticks out it's
fur.

 >  Who wins in a gun
 > battle (amongst civilians, anyway) is fairly random and isn't likely
 > correlated with "goodness".

Do you have evidence for the hypothesis that civilian gunfight results
are fairly random?

 > And again, my postulation is that the non-gun-toters are more
 > likely to survive because they don't threaten anyone and thus are
 > not compelling targets.

It depends alot on the purpose of the people involved.  I've been in
and around enough bar fights to know that people who were just sitting
there enjoying their beer were brought into the fight arbitrarily.

And I've known several people who regularly get accused of smirking
and people start fights with them for no reason.  So, again, your
postulate might be reasonable; but, there's plenty of reason not 
to believe it off the bat.

 > gepr> [re: universal declaration ...] Why?  Because equilibrium means
 > gepr> _death_ to a biological system.  So, if we achieve it, then
 > gepr> society (if not the whole biosphere) will collapse.
 > 
 > Isn't the assumption that violence-mediated access to scarce resources
 > is immutable a kind of equilibrium?

No.  Violence is an interaction... an ambiguous interaction that is
subject to the communication process of "decide, plan, transmit/commit,
travel through the medium, receive, interpret, respond".  And since
communication is so highly subjective and subject to noise at every
segment, it doesn't tend to stabilize without protocols.

Now, in things like boxing or gentelmens' duels, you might be right.
But, violence in general, no.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list