Dominance and Delusion: Why we do the things we do

Table of Contents

Title

Copyright

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Dominance and Delusion

Why we do the things we do

Marc A. Curtis

Copyright © 2023 Marc A. Curtis

All rights reserved

First Edition

Fulton Books

Meadville, PA

Published by Fulton Books 2023

ISBN 979-8-88731-589-8 (paperback)

ISBN: 979-8-89221-166-6 (hardcover)

ISBN 979-8-88731-590-4 (digital)

Printed in the United States of America

Introduction

This is a book of whys. They are simple whys, relevant whys, and necessary whys. Why do humans behave as they do? Why do humans think as they do? Why do humans believe as they do? Some of these beliefs are so silly, so absurd, so ludicrous—in and of themselves—that they are unbelievable. Yet we believe, and the question must be why.

Why, for example, would anyone believe in astrology? We have the birth dates of many people, both famous and not so. There is absolutely no pattern to the dates or times of these births. Not the slightest sign of clustering to show even the tiniest indication that birth time was all or even a small part of one's life cycle.

Besides, a more logical point at which one would expect astrological intercession is conception. This is, after all, an exact time—a specific day, hour, minute, and second. But except for petri dishes, such knowledge is unavailable, so birth time, even though it can vary, is the basis for modern astrological signs. And so we believe in the unbelievable, content that we know the unknowable, and proud that we are born in the sign of the lion or the ram or the virgin. This is delusion on a grand scale.

There is yet another aspect of astrology that must be considered. How does it actually work? How is our birth impacted by the stars? Do we, at birth, give off some type of radiation that is noted and replied to by the stars? The only problem with this concept is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. It would take eighty years for a round trip to a star forty light-years away. By then, our future would be over.

Perhaps the stars emit a ray or a beam that registers upon the newborn and fixes its future. If such is the case, then we ought to be able to detect such a beam or ray. Further, we ought to be able to record its variations as different individuals are born. And we ought to be able to analyze, understand, and duplicate the beam or ray to make us all healthy, wealthy, and wise. Don't think it's gonna happen.

Our delusions are many and varied. Yet all stem from a single basic human misconception. We believe that we are special. We believe we are unique, one of a kind, different, extraordinary; and so it is necessary that we demonstrate this condition by validating its veracity. The stars move for us. The planets position themselves for our benefit. The universe applies its total concentration to the birth of each and every one of us. That's how special we are.

We believe in ESP, UFOs, and a host of other entities with different acronyms—each special, each kept from the general public by a secretive and unscrupulous bureaucracy. We believe that our fate is in the cards and that Miss Cleo can pinpoint the reasons for our ups and downs. And Miss Cleo was big business. The company she was part of was recently forced to give up $500 million in billings because of false and defective advertising. A lot of people gave Miss Cleo a call and got fleeced.

Why do so many of us believe that we are special? Different? Unique? Why is it so hard for most of us to accept the fact that we are evolved animals? Why do so many of us prefer dreams and delusions to reality? Should we rationalize the impossible in an attempt to confirm the contention that we are special, or is it better to discover the truth and know that we are not?

There is danger in rationalizing the impossible, and we fail utterly to see that.

Why do we have war? Why does capitalism work? Why doesn't socialism work? Why did North America (excluding Mexico) develop so differently from South and Central America (including Mexico)? Both continents were discovered at the same time and were settled by Europeans. Today, the United States is the strongest, safest, wealthiest country in the world while Central and South America, including Mexico, wallow in poverty and chaos. And the question must be why. Until very recently, all these countries were dictatorships while the United States was never a dictatorship. This has a great deal to do with why there is a difference.

Why do we have dictators? Why is Africa, today, a bloody mess of dictatorships, filled with killing and hate, greed and corruption? The answer is simple, and the European colonists had nothing to do with it. Why do we have dictatorships in Southeast Asia, in the Middle East, and in China? We recently passed a little-noted but rather important threshold. It seems that for the first time in the world today, there are more people who are free than there are in chains. But the question still must be why is anyone anywhere subjected to a dictatorship?

In the United States, one of the most common impossibilities that we try to rationalize is the unsupported assertion that the Christian Bible is, in fact, a reasonable explanation of how we got here and why. This patently false absurdity is called creationism. Because it is such a widespread and pervasive delusion, it will be dealt with in some detail in this volume.

While researching the premise for this manuscript, I have had an opportunity to read creationist literature and the scientific refutation of this nonsense. In all this research, not once have I come across anything that would give some indication as to why anyone would believe such a patently false absurdity, and very little on why it is so important that we have an accurate and rational explanation of human behavior. This is really the key. If we are to address the ills of mankind, we must proceed from reality rather than from dreams.

How powerful is creationism as a force for blinding mankind? Ask Kurt Wise. Mr. Wise is one very smart man with a degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago and a PhD in geology from Harvard. Mr. Wise is a creationist. In spite of his learning and, even more important, in spite of his observations, he believes that the biblical explanation is the only way to go. In fact, Mr. Wise is reported to have said, If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist.

Now this is delusion on a grand scale. The geologic column is the very thing that totally gives the lie to creationism. It is there, in place, telling stories for intelligent, rational, unbiased individuals. These stories scream evolution and unequivocally deny creation. But here is an individual able to wall off sections of his mind and believe even if all the evidence is to the contrary.

And the question still must be why. Why would an intelligent, educated individual clutch this delusion to his bosom? The answer is actually as mundane and as delusional as creationism.

This is the way to get into heaven. By believing, one is saved. Questioning leads to hell, and that is motivation enough for most.

Harmless, you say. What harm can come from believing? Well, in Mr. Wise's case, you are right. But you might be interested to know that the perpetrators of the 9/11 mass murder did what they did in the name of religion and for a reward of seventy-two virgins.

Yes, that's right. Each of those idiots who hijacked the planes and flew them into the World Trade Center did so because they had been promised the services of seventy-two virgins in heaven. Islamic fascination with virginity will be dealt with in more detail later. Suffice to say, such fascination runs deep in the Muslim world and profoundly influences the treatment of females throughout Islamic countries.

Getting back to the virgins. It does not seem to me that these guys have really thought the whole virginity concept through. Not meaning to be disrespectful to the ladies, but good sex is as much experience as it is ability. Virgins with little or no experience just lie there. After the tenth virgin, the whole concept begins to pall; after the fifteenth or twentieth, the job becomes a chore—on the same plane as mucking out stables; and, I suspect, virgins thirty through seventy-two remain in perpetuity just that, virgins.

They are a bit silly and rather quaint, some of these beliefs, and mostly harmless, except for the human element. It is, on the other hand, no coincidence that inhuman acts are committed only by humans. And that is the rub. I don't care what these guys believe; but when they say that they are right and everybody else is wrong, when they say they have not just a responsibility to convert the great unwashed masses but a mandate to do so, I get upset. This has been the story of God and mankind down through time. I am right and you are wrong, and I have the right to convert you or kill you. And the question still must be why.

Here's an interesting why. Why are some people homosexuals? Homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals rarely have children. How then is the genetic predisposition for homosexuality passed on? There are reasons we behave as we do, and these reasons are rooted in our genetic past. We will not come to a better understanding of why we do the things we do by ducking into the closet of delusion. It is that way because God did it that way is not an explanation. Nor can we begin to address the problems of human behavior based on such an explanation.

Why do pundits maintain that we are monogamous when, in fact, 85 percent of the world's cultures are polygamous? Additionally, all the cultures in the world experience adultery, prostitution, and promiscuity. Well, the pundits say, we are partially monogamous. That is like saying a little bit pregnant or slightly dead. We either are or are not monogamous. The evidence, including our behavior, that we are not is overpowering and will be spelled out in detail. We will also delve into the reasons monogamy has been imposed upon the female by the male phylogenist. The reasons for this state of affairs have nothing to do with sex and have everything to do with dominance.

Why do we have war? Why are some individuals virtual dynamos of aggression while others are as pacifist as toast? Why is it that honest, just, and nice individuals can easily kill others in the heat and carnage of war where the enemy is clearly designated then go back to civilian life affected to a greater or lesser degree by the experience but not adversely influenced by the killing? Why is it so easy to get the population of a country to go to war? Germany had no problem putting together several armies during World War II. Neither did Japan. Nobody questioned these actions, certainly not enough to put any kind of brake on the mad dreams of Hitler or Tojo. Perhaps if these people had questioned their leader's behavior, they would not have suffered the retribution that they did. Leaders cannot lead followers who will not follow is a truism that needs to be understood by all the citizens of the world. It is also true that we get exactly the kind of government that we deserve.

Why do we have crime? Is it really the fact that some mother didn't breastfeed or that some male looked sideways at a vulnerable young child? Is it really true that if we are flooded with love during our formative years, we will be nice, kind, altruistic, honest, and loving? Interestingly enough for some, this is indeed true. Perhaps even for a majority of individuals, it is true. But for everyone? No. And the reasons are buried in our evolutionary past. You see, at one time, crime really did pay.

Why doesn't rehabilitation of criminals work? Actually, it does—sorta, kinda. Just enough to continue to give us hope that all will become susceptible, and not just the measly few we see today. Rehabilitation doesn't work very well because some individuals are wired to act normal, and we find that offensive.

Why do so many teenage males form gangs? Why are so many of these gangs Hispanic and Black? What is so attractive about rebelling against what we euphemistically call societal norms? Is it possible that these individuals are acting normally? Is it possible that they are behaving in accordance with millions of years of genetically selected behavior patterns? If this is true, then society will not easily be able to rid the world of gangs.

This is the main reason such explanations are rejected by the leftist liberal elite. If teenage bonding patterns among males are genetically influenced, then all their sophisms about nice, kind, loving, gentle, caring, and compassionate upbringing go right out the window. In short, they lose their rationale for the perfectibility of mankind.

Why are there so many dictatorships in the world today? Why has the history of the world been a history of dictatorships? They have been called king, emperor, caesar; and one dictator referred to himself as El Maximo Leader. Why should such individuals exist in the first place? Why is it so important for social groups to establish lines of authority? Why is it that every culture ever studied consists of a dominance system? Why is it that every communist dictatorship that has ever been established has had to build walls around itself to keep people in? Why is it that capitalist democracies have to build walls around themselves to keep people out? There is a message here, and it has nothing to do with the welfare of mankind and everything to do with the dominance of men.

Speaking of communism, why doesn't it work? If we are really kind, caring, altruistic, naturally moral, and pacifist, then communism should work. Each individual should gladly give of himself to the extent that he is able and take only what is needed to survive. But it doesn't work that way. Every communist country in the world has become a dictatorship. Some still are. Not once has communism been able to demonstrate that it is superior to capitalism. And yet, if we are really nice, communism should work. So the question remains why.

On a lighter note, why do pubescent females go gaga over rock stars? Why do we find sporting contests so entertaining? Why do sports stars find it so easy to score? I'll bet Magic Johnson has asked himself that question a million times. Why do we gamble? Take drugs? Risk our lives with everything from bungee jumping to mountain climbing? In short, why do so many of us act the way we do? Why do we have risk-takers, CEOs, criminals, scientists, and, most of all, politicians?

There are answers to all these whys. They are simple, relatively straightforward, and, most importantly, evolutionary in origin. There are two fundamental characteristics that define the human animal. The first is dominance. All social animals form dominance systems for good, sound evolutionary reasons. We are social animals, and we form dominance systems. The other defining characteristic of the human animal is its ability to delude itself. This is a function of intelligence, and it is the single most serious flaw in the human animal. Dominance drives us—at least some of us—and delusion blinds most of us. That is what this book is all about.

Chapter 1

We are exceedin gly fond of ourselves. We really, really like us. We think highly of the human race. We are the height of evolution in the eyes of many scientists, and we are made in the image of God, according to many religionists. We are special, unique, different, and the most important species on Earth. We are the culmination of evolution, the goal of Mother Nature, a perfect species.

This is delusion. Yes, we are different. Yes, we are unlike most animals. We are bipedal, hairless, and, some say, intelligent. But to imply that this difference entitles us to claim a total disconnect from the rest of biological life is a delusion. We are evolved animals. Much of our behavior is impacted by this fact. We will not truly begin to understand the human animal until we recognize this.

Our delusions are many and diverse. Some of us believe in ghosts. Some of us believe in psychics. Many of us believe in mental telepathy. Some even believe in haunted houses. We believe in ESP. We believe in life after death and crossing over. We believe that we can come back from death, or have already come back from death, and will be able to do so again. All this without the slightest shred of proof. We are the victims of delusion.

We believe in good luck and bad luck and influencing luck. If one blows on the dice, that brings good luck. If one walks under a ladder, that is bad luck. Black cats, spilt salt, and broken mirrors are all bad luck. Four-leaf clovers are good luck. A rabbit's foot is thought to bring good luck but, as often pointed out, not for the rabbit, which at one time had four of these supposedly good luck charms. We believe because we want to, because we think we can influence our future, when, in fact, there is absolutely no evidence we can do so.

Delusion is not limited to life and luck. Some pretty intelligent and well-reasoned people also harbor delusion. This is the story of two skulls—one real, one a fake. The fake was immediately clutched to our anthropological bosom because it conformed to the then popular delusion that intelligence preceded looks. The real skull was rejected because it did not conform to our perception of human evolution. The real skull consisted of a brain case not much bigger than a chimp's but with a face obviously on the road to human shape. Since anthropologists of the time were under the brainy-ape delusion, which the fake skull supported, the real skull was rejected, and the fake skull accepted.

In 1912, some skull fragments were found in a gravel pit in Piltdown Sussex, England. The finds consisted of a partial skullcap and a partial lower jaw. The skullcap did not include any face bones, and the jaw was incomplete to the extent that it had neither chin nor jaw joint. The skullcap was essentially modern while the jaw was mostly ape with a few human features. It was a good but not perfect forgery. Clues were available and, in hindsight, obvious. But English gentlemen do not commit fraud, and so fraud was never entertained.

The real skull was rejected for the same reason the fake was accepted. It had a small brain while its facial features were decidedly more human and less like that of an ape. The animal also appeared to be bipedal. The fossil find was discovered in southern Africa, not England, and by a provincial anatomist, not an English gentleman. So the real was rejected while the fake was accepted for over forty years until modern test methods demonstrated that brain-first evolution was an English gentleman's delusion.

Such imbroglios, while uncommon, do occur. And in the long run, they have little effect on our understanding of human nature. The fraud was uncovered by the same individuals who initially accepted the Piltdown fake. Tests, unavailable at discovery, confirmed that the skull and jaw were not connected. Indeed, the jaw was of a modern orang stained and shaped to look old and fossilized. The maker of the Piltdown bones knew enough about anatomy to fool some pretty good men. But these same men wanted desperately to believe what the bones said because believing fed their delusions. In the end, the situation was corrected, and anthropology emerged a bit more skeptical and much wiser after dealing with the Piltdown skull.

It is not always so. At about the same time Piltdown was playing out, another group of anthropologists was busy manufacturing and disseminating a concept of human nature that, to this day, haunts us.

Our story starts with Charles Darwin. In 1858, at a meeting of the Linnean Society, the first formal account of descent with modification and natural selection was presented. Much of the science community was actually relieved. Creationism, the then official story of man's appearance, was getting creaky with contradictions. The time frame was way too short; the phylogenic relationships of plant to plant and animal to animal looked suspiciously well organized to be entirely random. And there was no way that a single flood could account for the geological column. So an explanation that fell more in line with observation was pleasantly received in the scientific community.

From the fruit of Darwin's labors, many conclusions were drawn—most realistic and reasonable. For example, all life is related, a point pretty much validated by DNA; organisms vary, another point pretty much validated by both examination and breeding. Many formerly unexplainable observations came into focus, and one contemporary is supposed to have said upon hearing of the theory, How stupid of me not to have thought of that. Evolutionary theory explained many things, and as a result, its implications were applied to every facet of life, sometimes with less than desirable results.

It quickly became obvious that substantial inherited relationships existed in both plant and animal life. Species could be assigned to a genus of related species; a genus could be assigned to a family, a family to an order, and so on. Various characteristics of species made this assignment possible; relationships were established, and patterns emerged. Then someone got the bright idea that if physical characteristics were inherited, so also might behavior be an inherited characteristic.

At one time, it was assumed that all or most of animal behavior was coded at conception and that the majority of life-forms behaved as a direct consequence of chemical processes in the brain over which the animal had little or no control. Recent investigation disputes this. But there is little doubt that a good part of animal behavior is hardwired in the sense that both action and reaction are strongly influenced by instinct. That is not to say that animals are automatons, but rather, over eons, the response to many stimuli have come to be automatic in the same sense as breathing or the heart beating, something the animal does without thinking. Other responses to stimuli may require a thought process of one kind or another. So animals have both voluntary—and involuntary—behavior potential as mechanisms of survival.

Perhaps, since man was an animal, we, too, were hardwired in some areas of our brain, making our behavior to some extent something over which we, as individuals, had no control. Perhaps, since we were only another kind of animal, we, too, were more or less hardwired in certain areas just as any other species might be. And so grew the great nurture versus nature controversy.

It was argued that some individuals were more naturally fit to control and lead and even exploit others because nature had made them that way. Unrestrained and uncontrolled use of labor by management was a product of natural selection. Certain inherent characteristics in some individuals made them superior to the hoi polloi. And because such characteristics were inherited, it meant that those individuals and their offspring were destined to be rich, and everyone else ought to get used to the idea. This was nature at its very best, rationalizing the exploitation of the masses based on natural selection and justifying the dominance of others as a component of natural law.

Another school of human nature sprang up in the halls of academia to counter this nasty, awful, ill-conceived concept. The human brain at birth, these pontificators pontificated, was blank. It had no instinctive predispositions, no primal urges, no inherent wants or needs; in short, it was a blank slate. A person's disposition, personality, and behavior were all the result of the experience the individual had during their lifetime but especially during their childhood. This was nurture at its finest. If we were all just nurtured correctly, if as children we were given lots of love, if we felt secure, if we were always happy, if we were content, then when we grew up, we would be loving, kind, well-adjusted individuals and be a joy to our mothers.

Nature versus nurture. Are we ravening beasts or gentle lambs? Are we victims of our instincts, or do we control our behavior? Are we truly the epitome, the pinnacle, the glorious finale of evolution, or just another beastie in an ongoing compilation of beasties? The answer is that both nature and nurture impact our lives. The reasons why are fascinating, and we will pursue them in greater detail further on. For the time being, we must deal with the delusions this opposition of opinion has created.

Nurturists did not like the picture the naturalists painted. We were not beasties. We were kind, loving, gentle; and if we weren't, it was because of our upbringing. The nurturists set out to prove this by studying different cultures. The trouble was that every culture studied demonstrated a disturbing trend. A pattern emerged of war, greed, avarice, and deceit. We were, as a species, nasty, brutish, and xenophobic. Even cultures on the fringes of the world, the Eskimo and the !Kung, showed strong signs of animallike behavior—not at all human, not at all nice. Surely, the nurturists reasoned, there must be somewhere, someplace, a group or tribe or culture that exhibited the finer attributes of human nature—a quiet, nonviolent, kind, loving culture. In short, a fitting finish to evolution's plan, a peaceful man. Alas, the nurturists couldn't find one; a dilemma, indeed.

Enter Margaret Mead, a young student of anthropology, and her mentor, Franz Boaz. Both were ardent nurturists. Both were sure their theory of human development depended on upbringing. It was so simple, so refined, so achievable, if only we were nice to one another, if only we just loved one another, if only we were kind to one another. The image was so easy to visualize, so elegant that it must be true. Since we were the culmination of evolution, the concept of our being the best just had to be correct. It just had to be the answer. The question was how to prove it.

It looked bad for the nurturists. Nowhere could there be found a tribe or group that would break the mold—a culture that would show that under the right conditions we were naturally nice, kind animals and as such would display our nice, kind behavioral dispositions. Mead and Boaz decided that if they could find one, just one culture that demonstrated these attributes, then they could prove that it was nurture after all. No matter how many bad patterns in human behavior were cataloged, if one with good patterns was documented, then the reasonable inference would be that all the bad ones were the result of bad nurturing while the lone good culture demonstrated the finer points of natural human behavior.

It was a terrible plan. To prove the gentle nature of man by ignoring all the cultures that flatly contradict your theory and by hook or crook find one that, to a greater or lesser extent, validates your concept of human potential and then say this culture represents reality is hubris on a massive scale. But that is exactly what Mead did.

Where better to find paradise than in paradise. That wonderful world of palm trees, white sand beaches, and deep blue waters of the South Pacific. A place where coconuts and bananas were to be had for the picking, fish for the netting, and where taro literally jumped out of the rich volcanic soil. A place where long, lazy days on the beach were interspersed with hammock resting and pig feasting. If we were found to be nice in this perfect paradise, then Mead and company could argue that this was the true natural state of man. If the South Sea Islanders could be shown to be nice, kind, loving, gentle, and sexually free, then this would demonstrate that the natural state of man was nice. Sexual behavior had a lot to do with Mead's theory. Her contention was that much of the trouble and bad behavior that plagued mankind could be traced back to the sexual repression and that nagging subconscious frustration at the sexual mores of the day. If only we were all free of sexual impediments, then we would become truly nice.

And so Margaret Mead went to American Samoa, talked to two native girls who told her a bunch of lies because Mead's questions embarrassed them, and came to the conclusion that what young girls the world over need was more sex and less parental control. She wrote a book about the few months she spent in paradise. She called it Coming of Age in Samoa. The book made her famous, established her as a cultural icon, and created a vast collective delusion that plagues us to this day.

The truth about Mead's stay in Samoa has been more than thoroughly documented by Derek Freeman in The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research. Mead wanted desperately to prove that we were nice, kind, gentle, a fitting conclusion to evolution. She was so sure she was right that she ignored a mountain of evidence, some of which was included in Coming of Age, and placed blind faith in a pack of lies. The truth is there in the book and remains there for anyone not under the spell of Mead's delusion. Mead states, War and cannibalism have long since passed away. But they had not long since passed away. Three hundred years before Mead's arrival, the Samoans were some of the fiercest warriors in the South Pacific. Indeed, all the cultures in the area engaged in warfare on a massive scale, sailing thousands of miles in open canoes to wage war on their fellow Polynesians. Pacification came in the form of superior European weapons and smallpox. So Samoan culture was not so different from other cultures as one might suspect. At one time not too long ago, it was as violent and nasty as any other culture in the world.

Then there was the stratification in Samoan society. There were chiefs, high chiefs, talking chiefs, and a whole raft of hereditary social positions that determined at birth an individual's future status. Hardly an egalitarian society.

But it was the sex thing that Mead should have picked up on. Much of what we think about sex is delusional. But in Margaret Mead's case, it was delusion with a capital D. As mentioned, Samoan society is highly stratified. Individuals in the higher ranks have certain duties and responsibilities imposed as part of their status. One of the most important positions among the females of the chiefly class was that of ceremonial virgin. Ceremonial virgins were to be just that, virgins. Mead knew this. She had accepted a title of ceremonial virgin even though she was not—being a married woman. This fact was kept from the Samoans. Rather than accepting the position of ceremonial virgin, Mead should have considered the contradiction objectively. Sex was okay for all young unmarried Samoans. Sex was good for all young unmarried Samoans. Sex was accepted among all young unmarried Samoans, except for those at the very top of the social order. Mead never bothers to explain the logic behind this dichotomy. Lower-class girls were allowed to have all the fun, the excitement, the pleasure, while high-class girls had to keep their legs crossed. And not just in theory either, ceremonial virgins were subject to a very public and embarrassing rite whereby their purity was verified. Woe be unto those who did not display blood. They could be killed.

So here we have a culture that esteems purity among its females while allowing these same females to engage in sexual activity anytime, anyplace, and in any way. Mead does not find this unusual or odd or even a minor impediment to her theory of more sex and less parental control. Nurture is her bag, and she will substantiate her contention that upbringing is all, no matter what the facts say. Mead and Boaz fostered a delusion, a delusion on a grand scale, all to validate their concept of the nature of man.

Okay, you might say, so she fudged a bit. She stretched the truth. So what? Mead's machinations were directly responsible for the flowering of the counterculture in the fifties and sixties. Make love, not war; peace; and the pipe are all the results of impressionable young reading Coming of Age in Samoa, liking what they read, believing it, and living it. A laid-back lifestyle, tune in and drop out, be cool—just like the Samoans. Many a parent decided, on the basis of Mead's book, to allow their offspring a great deal of latitude in lifestyle choice with the hope that less parental control would produce better results.

Alas, many were doomed to disappointment. Some were pleasantly surprised, and the bulk of the fifties and sixties teenagers grew up to be reasonably well-adjusted adults in spite of their upbringing. The problem is that much of Mead's philosophy is still entrenched in academia. We want to believe we are good, kind, rational, loving, and a fitting culmination to evolution. Mead resonates because she feeds that desire. We like what she says. We revel in the implications of more sex and less parental control. And so most of our college humanities students are steeped in Mead and drunk on delusion. For most, experience corrects the delusion. But for a fanatic few, the rose-colored glasses become blinders. The result is academics totally out of touch with reality and more than willing to accept the most outrageous claims with respect to human behavior as long as they are positive. Just once, it would be satisfying to see man painted blacker than he really is, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Mead maintained that more sex and less parental control would produce better-adjusted females. This would be the first step in bringing about a better world. If only we were freed from our stuffy Victorian sexual attitudes, then we could become truly happy, carefree children of nature. Mead promoted promiscuity, believing that