submisives they become or they are born with it?

[FirstBorn]

this is odd. Darwin noted that some turtles had evolved appendages to fit certain tasks (then procedded with eating the turtles destroying the evidence). Try as i may im unable to grow tentacles thus evolving in that sense would imply breeding on tentacle like features for a pretty long time. That does not exclude the opportunity for a sudden mutation but im really not counting on my children having tentacles.

I claim that we are born with few personality traits or skills. This you dispute by saying most is learned... We agreed in the first place!!!

You go on saying that dom/sub tendencies relate to pack mentality, basically repeating what i said about surviving by fitting in.

I may be misinformed about indians, you said "and lack of fear of heights." Fear of heights constitutes a phobia even if possibly a keen sense of balance would limit phobic tendencies. Phobias however makes absolutely no sense as a genetic trait. Atleast thatd contradict children adopted from greenland being afraid of snakes, unless its indeed common genetic memory going back to before eskimo's first wandred there. That thou would contradict the rapid evolution i think you opposed my darwin argument with earlier.

[Miner]

this is odd. Darwin noted that some turtles had evolved appendages to fit certain tasks (then procedded with eating the turtles destroying the evidence). Try as i may im unable to grow tentacles thus evolving in that sense would imply breeding on tentacle like features for a pretty long time. That does not exclude the opportunity for a sudden mutation but im really not counting on my children having tentacles.

I claim that we are born with few personality traits or skills. This you dispute by saying most is learned... We agreed in the first place!!!

You go on saying that dom/sub tendencies relate to pack mentality, basically repeating what i said about surviving by fitting in.

Mutation and evolution work against each other. Mutation is rarely beneficial. Evolutionary steps tend to be small (in as much as they are a modification of something already in place) rather than radical and different. The radically different changes (mutations) tend to be lethal because they do not allow breathing room for the organism to adapt properly.

Radical divergences from the norm are also usually not beneficial.

In terms of learned behaviour versus instinct. You missed my point. Most human behaviour is learned. Some human behaviours (pack instinct being one of them) are intrinsic (and instinctive) though they may be modified by learned behaviour (conditioning).

The fact that pack instinct is just that is merely an indication that some lower-order behaviours tend to be instinctive. Mistaking post-natal modification through conditioning as indication an either-or relationship with a behaviour is a common fallicy.

Your comments about phobias making no genetic sense needs a rethought. It makes emminent sense in terms of ensuring the long-term viability of the organism. An absence of caution is much more lethal than an excess of caution.

[FirstBorn]

right, lets put phobias aside and discuss common ground.

Yes id agree that seeking out other humans and forming packs of sorts is a natural instinct.

How we conform in packs thou cant be all instincts and even if so. it does not explain a 7 foot athlete submitting or a scrawny dom. If pack mentality were indeed all there was to it we would all or most of us, in some mannor give domination a try and upon failure we would submit, till we see signs of weakness and give it a second go.

I have met few people that i belived to be all dom or sub. Even if they were telling the truth (could be unaware of some issues) i still put it down to upbringing over genetics.

Simply because submitting by genetics does not promote success or mating in a pack of animals and thus would have been bred out long ago.

Possibly now that i think about it. If we bred women to be submissive because this promoted pack/society stability, one could argument that male subs are simply a form of men seeking female roles. Not unlike homosexuals or transvestites... Best not get carried away with that idea.