The author of the article above was himself so defined by ambivalence he was unable to draw any meaningful conclusions about ambivalence.
I can draw them quickly and succinctly for him.
Ambivalence is a good trait to have if you are in a very large, gregarious and complex social group which requires you to lie almost constantly to navigate the sea of deception around you. It is a survival trait for the Homo Sapiens social pool. Somebody who is not ambivalent to the point of distraction will not do well when dealing with Sapiens in large groups. To this end, as a result of natural selection, humans as a rule are so full of crap they don't even know themselves what point they are trying to make most of the time.
Ambivalence is a death sentence if you are in a harsh, unforgiving environment - particularly in small tightly knit tribes like those that formed the character of Neanderthal. Jack London's classic story TO BUILD A FIRE demonstrates how quickly the surroundings of a human being can remove them from the gene pool if they are ambivalent. The reason that Neanderthal character was shaped to be the way it was is that all the people who were like the protagonist in TO BUILD A FIRE will die in less than a week in the same circumstances, leaving no offspring. Rules exist for a reason. Don't go out alone in cold like that described. It's a rule for a reason. This is why Neanderthals had such large frontal lobes in the Amud strain. Rules weren't just something to yack about on Oprah Winfrey - they were the difference between life and death.
Ambivalence as a long term coping mechanism will always result in boom-bust cycles. The human social group which is provided the leeway of prosperity created by non-ambiguity that emerges from tough situations will build up mythologies they will indulge in ("derivatives are a great investment," etc.) until reality comes crashing in and destroys their false ambiguous artificially constructed consensus world view, time and time again.
Sapiens has failure built into his nature. It's like he was genetically designed to fail.
Neanderthals were genetically designed to succeed. They didn't have self-defeating mechanisms built into their biology. How could natural selection produce a self-defeating organism when the very paradigm is selection for success?
We could say that Neanderthal was a species with an unlimited horizon, if it were not for the sudden appearance of Homo Sapiens, an animal which appears to have not only been designed to destroy the emergent race of Enkidu but also to destroy itself once the deed was done. Sapiens might be considered similar to a disposable fumigant like you use to kill roaches. Once it is exhausted it is then ready to throw away. Ambiguous, facile, deceptive, distracted, unable to organize beyond warfare. No danger of it ever turning into Neanderthal ... unless the race physically spliced itself with Neanderthal genes afterwards by taking their wives. Which is actually exactly what happened. That's why you're reading this right now.
Here we are the end of my blog. This is where I am supposed to offer a cure or panacea for my conclusion. It is part of the scripted behaviour of humans - raise a problem, pretend you know the solution, benefit from the perceived increase in status as a problem solver, get access to hot Sapiens babes. It's all part of the theatrics of their lives.
Well, my conclusion is that there is no solution. I conclude that Homo Sapiens is a doomed species. It has been on the wane for the past 40,000 years since the initial injection of Neanderthal creativity and intelligence and as of the end of this Holocene, it's really run out of gas for good. With his brain now down to 1350cc on average, Homo Sapiens won't be going back to the moon anytime soon and especially with no Werner Von Brauns left hanging around to put him there so he can wave his arms and take credit. I predict the fun is over.
Okay, here's the part where I try to infuse this blog with some optimism.
Homo Sapiens civilization stinks and it has run out of juice. Once it goes through the ringer, I reckon the planet will have a new horizon of possibility and there is no telling how things in general might get better. A better future with a Neanderthal-Sapiens blend is a nice thing to imagine and it can even be hoped for, hopefully with a little more Neanderthal this time and a lot less Sapiens. I can't stand the ambiguity, it's like listening to an Eliza Bot. Whatever happens, it is hard to visualize it as being sadder and more deranged than it is now. We've got nowhere to go but up.