According to the linked article below, the book doesn't say much ( enough ) about Darwin, and the jury is still out on egalitarianism. Virtually every evolutionarily informed researcher says the evidence supports egalitarian pre-agricultural societies.

Are you really not able to tell the difference between “…how a story could be constructed such that it couldn’t be used for ill…” and “…how stories may be designed, to personal advantage…”, or are you just banking on the hope that no one else can tell the difference?

There is a critical difference. Can you see it?

Conversation here:
How do you view Jesus?

.

@skado Yes I can tell the difference , but it is irrelevant. Since the personal advantage of one, or even one group, may well bring, even far greater, ill to many others.

@Fernapple
Can you put into words what difference you see? Will you steelman my point so I know you understand it? I’m not convinced you do.

@skado Yes you are presenting the idea that "ill" has a wider meaning than personal advantage, and that all personal advantage may not lead to ill. And if I am correct, please put me right if I am not. Then I am telling you that it is of no interest to me, because it is only the personal advantage which leads to ill that I am concerned about.

@Fernapple
No. I’ve made no distinction between ill and personal advantage.

@Fernapple
Can you spot the difference? It’s not subtle.

@skado I am sure that there are hundreds of differences, but I have better things to do than play childish silly guessing games. If you can not give a straight answers to a straight question. " If I am not correct, please put me right ?" Then I am done.

Especially as I suspect, that as usual with you, it lead to yet more banalities and logical nonsense.

@Fernapple
If you can’t spot this plainly visible difference without assistance, I doubt my pointing it out would make any difference. I’m convinced you have the ability. But I can understand why you might not have the desire.

@Fernapple
There are not hundreds. If you read carefully it’s plain to see that the statements are diametric opposites. Communication can be limited not only by the sender but equally by the receiver. If you are unwilling to read what I write, I can hardly see any point in trying to communicate.

@Fernapple
I don’t believe for a minute that you’re done. I wish it were true. But the very next time I post anything on this subject ( or probably before ) you’ll be right back in there misreading what I write, building a straw man you can handily dispatch and attributing it to me, insulting my character or my competence because you have nothing of substance with which to counter the actual idea, and relentlessly harassing me.

We both know you will.

No, you’re not done. You’re just not willing to admit it’s even possible that you could have misread what I wrote.

@skado Wow, yes I have completely misread what you wrote, of course. But in my defence, I would say that it would never have occurred to me, that anyone could write anything so completely far away from the point at issue, and so completely illogical.

As usual, that is totally beside my point, what the passage, in the video ( A little longer than the 7-30- 8-40 I admit, I should be more careful. ) said was that. People in the deep past , were quite capable of consciously designing, both their societies and thereby the narratives which support them. And it follows naturally, that what can be designed, can be ill, and mis designed. That being an assumption, on my part, which should be too obvious to be worthy of expression.

It is no wonder however that I did not see your point. Since whether the the receivers are able to limit the communication, has absolutely nothing to do with my original point, and is so far beside that point, as to be ridiculous. Once more more you waste my time.

And please do not start down the path of. Design thereby needs the involvement of both the instigator and the receiver. We both know. That every bit of evidence gathered by psychology over the past hundred years, has shown, the willingness of humans to accept narratives from popular and authoritarian sources, even over there own interests, best judgements and moral convictions.

Going that way would be to really waste my time.

@Fernapple
The only person who can waste your time is you. Just as you are doing here. You have no idea what I’m talking about.

@skado And it appears that you have no idea what I am talking about.

@Fernapple

Correct. All I know is that it isn't what I'm talking about.

@skado Then why not try listening to someone else for once. Oh and please bare in mind this is my comment you chose to reply to.

@Fernapple

bear