Addendum and rambling!
Okay, so, that laptop deal is a great one. But, its possible that my uncle might be able to fix my laptop, so I've sent it off to him. I think this means I'll be missing the deal all together, but if I /have/ to replace it at some point, and if parents help me, I can wait a little while longer for the next deal to come up, right?
Anyhow, I was thinking earlier.
Some individuals do not need certainty in order to act. Others do, they need completeness, wholeness, and assurance. The former might not feel the need to consider these things. They might be less empathetic - many males seem far less empathetic as a whole, for instance, culturally or biologically.
It seems like those individuals who do not need certainty are those most predisposed to be leaders. Their missteps weigh far, far less on their minds than do the missteps of those who need that certainty. They're able to advance where others fall. They might be far less concerned about what others think about them, or what they're about to say. More successful leaders, however, may be empathetic and yet able to cope with that uncertainty better than others.
It is evolutionarily useful to need to feel secure in your actions. And those more prone to feeling insecure may very well be more safe, and more likely to pass on their genes. Conversely, those who feel more secure might yet rise to the top, and offer their genes just the same. Its unclear if any one side ever wholly wins out on this issue.
Religion in general offers certainty in the face of many things. Death most notably, religion attempts to resolve, from the Wheel of Karma to Hades. Those needing some answer and wholeness, some resolution to these questions, might be drawn to religion for very valid reasons.
Suppose an ancient tribe, with no traditions on this topic. Somebody dies. Those who don't need perfection might provide answers in daily life to many questions, their best guess which they feel they can rely upon, that those who need more certainty may not normally make on their own. Another seemingly certain individual makes an answer at least a little more certain in others minds, for good reason, after all. These individuals might be asked to give an answer to the group as to what happens when someone dies. Their answers might be imaginative constructs to fill that void, that they don't need proof of so much - they only need to know it works.
Filling that void begins a construct which grows into a system of beliefs. The effectiveness of this construct would be greatly diminished if someone were to question it - so it grows to include answers which preclude questioning, in order to preserve the benefit it provides. From this seed, whole religions may form, in a 'natural' way, of sorts..
Or, this was just what I was thinking. I've not quite seen it framed this way, but it would make sense if it were a popular idea, and I hadn't known about it.
Anyhow, I was thinking earlier.
Some individuals do not need certainty in order to act. Others do, they need completeness, wholeness, and assurance. The former might not feel the need to consider these things. They might be less empathetic - many males seem far less empathetic as a whole, for instance, culturally or biologically.
It seems like those individuals who do not need certainty are those most predisposed to be leaders. Their missteps weigh far, far less on their minds than do the missteps of those who need that certainty. They're able to advance where others fall. They might be far less concerned about what others think about them, or what they're about to say. More successful leaders, however, may be empathetic and yet able to cope with that uncertainty better than others.
It is evolutionarily useful to need to feel secure in your actions. And those more prone to feeling insecure may very well be more safe, and more likely to pass on their genes. Conversely, those who feel more secure might yet rise to the top, and offer their genes just the same. Its unclear if any one side ever wholly wins out on this issue.
Religion in general offers certainty in the face of many things. Death most notably, religion attempts to resolve, from the Wheel of Karma to Hades. Those needing some answer and wholeness, some resolution to these questions, might be drawn to religion for very valid reasons.
Suppose an ancient tribe, with no traditions on this topic. Somebody dies. Those who don't need perfection might provide answers in daily life to many questions, their best guess which they feel they can rely upon, that those who need more certainty may not normally make on their own. Another seemingly certain individual makes an answer at least a little more certain in others minds, for good reason, after all. These individuals might be asked to give an answer to the group as to what happens when someone dies. Their answers might be imaginative constructs to fill that void, that they don't need proof of so much - they only need to know it works.
Filling that void begins a construct which grows into a system of beliefs. The effectiveness of this construct would be greatly diminished if someone were to question it - so it grows to include answers which preclude questioning, in order to preserve the benefit it provides. From this seed, whole religions may form, in a 'natural' way, of sorts..
Or, this was just what I was thinking. I've not quite seen it framed this way, but it would make sense if it were a popular idea, and I hadn't known about it.