Behavioral Sink

I don't know if this adds something new to the elsewhere mentioned experiments by Calhoun but here's a nice write-up on the Behavioral Sink.

"Cabinet and the author regret that a previous version of this article omitted its sources. To readers who are interested in learning more about Calhoun's research, we highly recommend "Escaping the Laboratory: The Rodent Experiments of John B Calhoun and Their Cultural Influence" by Edmund Ramsden and Jon Adams, LSE Department of Economic History, 2008, to which this article is indebted.

How do you design a utopia? In 1972, John B. Calhoun detailed the specifications of his Mortality-Inhibiting Environment for Mice: a practical utopia built in the laboratory. Every aspect of Universe 25—as this particular model was called—was pitched to cater for the well-being of its rodent residents and increase their lifespan. The Universe took the form of a tank, 101 inches square, enclosed by walls 54 inches high. The first 37 inches of wall was structured so the mice could climb up, but they were prevented from escaping by 17 inches of bare wall above. Each wall had sixteen vertical mesh tunnels—call them stairwells—soldered to it. Four horizontal corridors opened off each stairwell, each leading to four nesting boxes. That means 256 boxes in total, each capable of housing fifteen mice. There was abundant clean food, water, and nesting material. The Universe was cleaned every four to eight weeks. There were no predators, the temperature was kept at a steady 68°F, and the mice were a disease-free elite selected from the National Institutes of Health’s breeding colony. Heaven.

....."

The whole thing in the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

I don't want to start too many threads so I pour this in the behavioral sink.


Banding, bonding together in groups has been The Way of Men(TM) for many millenias, to enable the group and thereby the individuals to survive, to continue and pass on their way of life.

In such groups it is critical that the members re-member their origins. The motivations of the individuals have to be valued by the group. Man does not want to belong, he wants his essence to become the group, ultimately tries to be the group. Yet the essence is always evolving, on the inside as one tries to uncover the self, and on the outside in the form of group dynamic/change. Therefore it's a continuous struggle and a state of ultimate being, being content, being satiated for a prolonged time is unobtainable by the masculine - it's in its nature - the group remains dynamic.

“Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing, sooner than war.” - Homer.

If anything, the tree of life is broadening over time, some branches wither away while others grow stronger to change again. There is no end but an end in itself. These groups are always the sum of self and values of individuals.
Whereas the feminine is about uniting, the masculine is about separating. The size of a group is determined by the ratio between feminine and masculine qualities within it.

The feminine seeks to integrate while the masculine is fine with establishing colonies, which is the spreading of one's essence. So there is a tendency for groups to splinter off which is possible as long as there is enough fertile ground to expand into.

Men welcome adversity. Defeat can be bitter, less so, if part of the adversary is recognized in spirit as being of one's own kind. Pleasure, the pleasure of overcoming. Bring back bitterness into life! It's either a threat coming from the outside or a challenge from within. A group cannot exceed a certain size without changing the nature of the beast.

The women of such groups are also bond and guided by that shared essence. Their hierarchies are a reflection of the masculine one.

Those hierarchies can be part of bigger hierarchies. Bigger structures have a tendency to become unstable. The key is that the interaction between two entities within this super structure is based on boundaries. This is to say, there can be channels of exchange but the inner workings within one group are not to be interfered with by another group. It's an unstable equilibrium, it eventually falls into decay to be forged again at a later time, cyclical in nature.


In modern systems and environments the individual is forced into groups and dynamics, throughout his life, which haven't grown over time but which are rigid structures being populated by members of various kind, of in part incompatible essences, heritages.
New dynamics arise in such an environment. The other is being lied about. It doesn't exist on the outside because everything outside the structures is being assimilated, or tried to. Challenges within the group cease to happen. To challenge is to to ask "Who are you?" This is not of any value to the flock, a pointless endeavour for them. Instead of challenge, the element of other is now identified within the group where it is perceived as a threat.
The appearence of the hierarchy to the individuals is flat, it's what is being advocated - efficiency is on the decline.