Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4077 talk.philosophy.misc:4603 soc.men:24084 soc.women:30259
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!fluke!tron
From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.philosophy.misc,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Dec5.170147.21611@tc.fluke.COM>
Date: 5 Dec 90 17:01:47 GMT
References: <59261@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz> <1399@gtx.com>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 18

In article <1399@gtx.com> al@gtx.UUCP (Alan Filipski) writes:
>In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz> A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes:
>>
>>It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational
>>behaviour is quite rare.  OF course there is a lot of behaviour that
>
>Behavior can be classified as "rational" or "irrational" only with
>respect to some agreed-upon and well-defined end, and even then it's
>sometimes hard to tell which is which.

I mildly disagree.  Behavior can be classified as rational if the person
behaving such has considered the affects of the behavior with respect to
the person's goals.  It is this consideration that makes the behavior
rational, born of thought, rather than what the actual behavor is.

IMHO, of course,

Peter B


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com