Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I lost faith in Cunliffe when he got into populist scare-mongering over South Canterbury Finance. the bailout of which was an intended consequence of legislation he voted for at every opportunity.
If he had questions over what Cullen was doing he should have been asking them at the time.
It was always going to be a very difficult Greater Public Good argument to make and Cullen was well aware of the possibility of such unfortunate but necessary consequences of this least worst option to safe-guard our broader finacial system.
To their credit National continued with Cullen's initiative. It's a pity that Cunliffe opted for cheap shots. With all his talk of new ways, he resorted to the old ways when given the opportunity.
-
And we know how junkies and P-heads get about the rituals around their drug consumption. They basically start getting high before the drugs get into their bodies.
antici.................pation, as someone once said.
-
My recollection is that Cullen was never very keen on WFF or interest free student loans, "no jam" I think was the expression he used, but they got introduced before an election just when Labour's fortunes were flagging.
Cullen did very well but he did very well in the good times and that masked how vulnerable our economy was, as he was trying to point out, but still Labour oversaw a massive distortion in the economy with property investmnt.
Presently Labour are preaching exactly the same economic salvation we've been hearing for a generation - an export-lead recovery with knowledge industries etc. Anyone remember The Knowledege Wave?
I think the sad reality is that neither party can do a great deal to solve what are very long-standing economic problems and that we'll be faced with a slow digging out process whoever is in govt.
-
ok, I think I've read reasonably widely to be able to back-up my opinions. But I'm not an expert.
Has anyone noticed that with primate species that do use teeth display as a means of asserting dominace/submission that it's the submissive animal that displays their teeth - as an act of submisson.
The submissive has to say "here's what I can eat you with" as an act of submission?
To me it suggests a more complex story than human smiles = i will eat you.
-
Hard News: Some Lines for Labour, in reply to Islander,
Read
*van Lawick Goodall
*de WaalGoodall and de Waal are referenced in the article quoted above.
It generally does not involve 'smiles' but does involve gestures, sounds, grooming, and postures.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the bared-teeth, up-turned corners of the mouth facial expression we call a "smile" does not occur in chimpanzees and bonobos or are you saying they occur but as part of a range of pro-social signals?
-
Hard News: Some Lines for Labour, in reply to Islander,
A leetle reading on the ‘submissive/submission grin’* among primates may be helpful.
The first article I linked to discussed that:
Among primates, the function of the bared-teeth also has different meanings depending on the species and their type of social organization. Among macaques species that have despotic social systems characterized by strict, linear dominance hierarchies, i.e. rhesus monkeys, the bared-teeth display appears to be a signal of submission, or rank recognition in that it is only given by subordinates to higher ranking individuals (van Hooff, 1976; de Waal and Luttrell, 1985). This expression has been referred to as a formal signal of dominance in the rhesus monkey because it is highly ritualized in appearance and has long-term predictability in determining dominance relationships despite short-term variation in social contexts (de Waal and Luttrell, 1985). In this study, bared-teeth displays performed by subordinate individuals occurred most often in response to the approach of a dominant monkey, and the most frequent response was for the subordinate to withdraw from any social interaction (de Waal and Luttrell, 1985).
Yes, bare-teeth grins are a part of dominance/submission social signals for some primates. But for others - those which have a relatively more egalitarian structure, that's "relative" not absolute, as you suggest chimp society is no utopia - the bare-teeth grin is more commonly a positive social signal, ie
functions to increase social attraction and affiliation
And given that those others include the chimpanzee and bonobo species, our closest primate relatives, it makes sense to compare us with them and not the first group.
We share with them the bared-teeth, up-turned ends of mouth facial expression that sends a positive social message and what we call a smile.
Now, if there's a malfuntion of the mirror neuron system and that leads to a reversion back towards facial/emotion recognition systems from earlier in our evolution (I'm skepitical) then that does not necessarily imply that one would mistake a smile for a snarl. One might mistake it for a hat.
-
I'm not sure where the idea that primates baring their teeth is a threatening gesture comes from, there appears to be evidence that this is not the case:
However, the meaning of the bared-teeth display is quite different when used by species with more egalitarian social systems, including some macaques, mandrills, Gelada baboons and chimpanzees (van Hooff, 1967; Preuschoft and van Hooff, 1997). In these species, the bared-teeth display is more appeasing and functions to increase social attraction and affiliation. It communicates benign intent in that the signaler wishes no harm, and that there is no risk of aggression (van Hooff, 1967; van Hooff, 1976; Waller and Dunbar, 2005). It can also occur during affiliative contexts, such as grooming, sexual solicitation and reconciliations, and thus functions to increase affiliative tendencies and reduce proximity between individuals
emphasis added.
and if you look at the facial expressions of bonobos (slide 7 of the interactive version), the bared teeth grin is a friendly gesture.
So if the lack of mirror neurons does lead to a reversion in facial recognition processing to a point earlier in our evolution, which may not be the case, that does not explain why a smile changes from affection to threat.
Perhaps it has something more to do with being unable to differentiate between a real smile and a fake smile - which use slightly different muscles.
-
One of the arguments put forward in Foreign Policy against torture was:
The more you think about, the less sense torture makes. U.S. allies will become unwilling to conduct joint operations if they are concerned about how detainees will be treated in U.S. custody...
It has indeed placed two NZ govts in a difficult position.
I still support our involvement there.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Simon Grigg,
Neil - neither back your assertion at all
they actually do, I have read them, try and put aside the condescension for a moment, I've kept from going personal.
But speaking of Fisk
Fisk:
But what of the Arab mujahedin he took to Afghanistan - members of a guerilla army who were also encouraged and armed by the United States - and who were forgotten when that war was over?
bin Laden:
"Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help.
(Fisk asked about the Arab mujahedin, not the Afghani mujahedin who were funded by the US)
-
He could have said something highly relevant about the use of "Geronimo", but no. Not the sort of freedom fighter he had in mind.