Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 173 of 252 (289067)
02-21-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by robinrohan
02-21-2006 8:31 AM


Re: Shortness of life
quote:
Oh, it's on an UNCONSCIOUS level. I see. I'm not sure how we could know that since it's unconscious.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 8:31 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by EZscience, posted 02-21-2006 9:51 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 252 (289163)
02-21-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by EZscience
02-21-2006 9:51 AM


Re: Shortness of life
quote:
For example, females of some stalk-borers I study always lay their eggs in the plants with the fattest stalks available. They respond to stalk girth as a stimulus, but they don't KNOW that choosing fat stalks will make their offspring bigger. However, I know that because I weigh larva every year and measure plants. Females responding to this particular stimulus have been successful leaving progeny, so the response has been selected in females over time. It's much the same with lots of human behaviors, but you are never going to be conscious of *why* you respond in a certain way to a particular stimulus. And that does NOT imply determinism of behavior or lack of free will either.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by EZscience, posted 02-21-2006 9:51 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by EZscience, posted 02-21-2006 2:12 PM nator has not replied
 Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2006 5:41 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 252 (289537)
02-22-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Murphy
02-22-2006 10:44 AM


Re: The problem identified?
quote:
Are you trying to say that when some psychologist makes a diagnosis that all other psychologists would make the same diagnosis?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 10:44 AM Murphy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 191 of 252 (289600)
02-22-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Murphy
02-22-2006 2:58 PM


Re: The problem identified?
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 is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 2:58 PM Murphy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 192 of 252 (289601)
02-22-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
02-22-2006 3:16 PM


Re: what we find attractive
quote:
Um, aren't we all attracted to food or quantities of food that isn't good for us?
No.
quote:
How do you explain this? I mean FAT is delicious, and so are CARBS, but we're SUPPOSED to eat lean protein and veggies instead.
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:
They're OK, and I do like them but I'd rather eat chips and dip or very heavily sauced fatty foods and stuff full of sugar and so on.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 02-22-2006 3:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 209 of 252 (290154)
02-24-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by robinrohan
02-24-2006 4:20 PM


Re: Evo Psych = mental disorder?
quote:
Feminine beauty is probably a wave, don't you think?
This didn't contribute to the topic, but I had to smile when I read it.
Good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 4:20 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 221 of 252 (292027)
03-04-2006 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by crashfrog
02-22-2006 3:51 PM


Re: what we find attractive
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 3:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 9:55 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 222 of 252 (292030)
03-04-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by robinrohan
02-24-2006 10:55 AM


Re: Evo Psych = mental disorder?
quote:
If I say, "This woman is beautiful," maybe that's like saying, "This grass is green."
No.
Ideas of what is beautiful are MUCH, MUCH more variable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 10:55 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 224 of 252 (292924)
03-07-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by inkorrekt
03-05-2006 10:47 PM


Re: what we find attractive
quote:
Faith, you are right on. We all eat foods that are harmful.
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:
I do. There is something known as an appetite center in our brain. We all have appetites for some foods. This is known as "Cravings". This is lot more complex than what we tend to explain.The appetite centers are sensitive to certain neurotransmitters in blood which act as triggers.They in turn either stimulate or suppress our "Cravings"
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 10:47 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 226 of 252 (292936)
03-07-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
03-07-2006 9:55 AM


Re: what we find attractive
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 9:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 11:37 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 228 of 252 (292951)
03-07-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
03-07-2006 11:37 AM


Re: what we find attractive
Well, at least I don't make up some magical answer like "Godidit"
.
quote:
No great achievement that I can see, especially since I don't either.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 11:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 249 of 252 (294306)
03-11-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by 1.61803
03-08-2006 10:43 AM


quote:
No one wants a mate that is unkept, malnutritioned and possibly has diseases.
Excepting fashion models, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by 1.61803, posted 03-08-2006 10:43 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024