|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5833 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When is a belief system a Mental Disorder? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If you did some reading on basic human psychology you would know about it. It's a common human conceit that we are in control of and are even aware of all of our impulses, desires, reasoning, and motivations. There's lots of good evidence that shows that we are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I just thought of another example for humans. Back in the day when we were still quadripedal and before we wore clothing, the female buttocks was the main sexual attractant. Now that we are bipedal and face each other and wear clothes, the males can't really see the buttocks any more, so larger breasts began to be selected for as a substitute buttocks. Breasts don't have to be protruding at all to be functional; indeed, they are probably only recently been considered sexual parts at all instead of mommy parts. In some cultures where people wear little clothing, breasts are not considered sexual at all. So, all of you who like big breasts, it's really big buttocks you are sticking up there on a woman's chest. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 01:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Something that most people not involved in the sciences don't realize is that Psychology is a VERY large field and that clinical Psychologists (i.e. therapists) are but one type of Psychologist. My husband, for example is a recent PhD in Psychology, but he has no background at all in clinical. His concentration was in Neuropsychology, Cognition, and Perception. He is currently doing research on the congnition of learning. So, he does science, just like any other scientist. AND, clinical Psychologists (therapists), unless they are ALSO trained as scientists, probably do not do science. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2006 11:30 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Something that most people not involved in the sciences don't realize is that Psychology is a VERY large field and that clinical Psychologists (i.e. therapists) are but one type of Psychologist.
My husband, for example is a recent PhD in Psychology, but he has no background at all in clinical. His concentration was in Neuropsychology, Cognition, and Perception. He is currently doing research on the congnition of learning. So, he does science, just like any other scientist. AND, clinical Psychologists (therapists), unless they are ALSO trained as scientists, probably do not do science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No.
quote: Way, way, way back in the day ("caveman" days, IOW), long before agriculture, long before we kept animals for food, it was quite the job getting enough calories to survive, sustain offspring, and fight off disease. The fondness for fat and sweet things was selected for in our evolution as these tend to be calori-dense foods, which are very valuable when food is hard to get. Salt, too, was difficult to get enough of, and since sodium is crucial for the function of the heart, a fondness for saltiness was also selected for. There was selection for the tendency to eat beyond the point of hunger being satisfied because getting a windfall of food wasn't at all guaranteed; it wasn't known if there was going to be drought, or disease, so better pack on the stored calories now in case of future famine. Lastly, many plant-based poisons are bitter in flavor, so selection for a great sensitivity for, and strong dislike of, bitter flavors occurred as well.
quote: The reason these foods are considered "bad" now is because our environment has changed, in a blink of an eye evolutionarily-speaking, to make getting all sorts of food incredibly easy. This is a textbook-perfect example of natural selection and how a beneficial or detrimental a trait is is entirely dependent upon the environmental conditions. In fact, we see great obesity levels in current populations of certain American Indians who survived for tens of thousands of years farming in extremely dry conditions. Those individuals, ver those many thousands of years, who couldn't survive during the leaner times simply didn't get to pass on their genes. The people with those genes no longer do physical labor every day and eat mainly corn and beans. They are much more sedentary and eat frybread and other calorie-dense foods. They are at a disadvantage because they have what has become known as "thrifty genes". This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2006 03:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: This didn't contribute to the topic, but I had to smile when I read it. Good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Hey, Crash, notice how Faith doesn't have a reply to our answers to her questions regarding why we want to eat certain foods?
Hmmm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. Ideas of what is beautiful are MUCH, MUCH more variable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No food is "harmful" if it is actual real, wholesome food and not processed and filled with synthetics and chemicals. It is the amount and ratio of particular foods eaten, compared with other environmental factors such as the amount of exercise, sleep, and stress we take in, that determine "harmfulness".
quote: So, why do you suppose we have cravings for high-calorie (sugar and fat) foods? Could it be that our evolutionary ancestors had a hard time getting enough calories to live, nourish young, and fight off disease, and so the individuals who liked fat and sugar, and who were able to eat lots of it and readily store extra fat for the lean times tended to reproduce more successfully and therefore their genes would be more likely to persist in the population?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, at least I don't make up some magical answer like "Godidit".
At least my hypothesis is based upon observations in the real world. So, do you deny that there is a genetic basis for why some people put on weight easily and other people do not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, at least I don't make up some magical answer like "Godidit" .
quote: Sure you do. This is your stock answer to any and all scientific questions which contradict your particular interpretation of your holy book. So, do you deny that there is a genetic basis for why some people put on weight easily and other people do not? Yes or no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Excepting fashion models, of course.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024