Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 142 of 252 (288497)
02-20-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by robinrohan
02-19-2006 3:13 PM


Re: Shortness of life
The only way we could have a formal purpose is if we were made by a being who had something in mind when he made us.
That sounds like a question you should have with your parents. What did they have in mind when they made you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by robinrohan, posted 02-19-2006 3:13 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 2:54 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 150 of 252 (288774)
02-20-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by robinrohan
02-20-2006 2:54 AM


Re: Shortness of life
The parents are just assembly-line workers.
Oh? We're supposed to assume that your parents met and mated totally at random, regardless of their individual mate preferences; and then had absolutely no input into your rearing and education?
If I were to go to my mom and display the total lack of credit she deserves for me being who I am that you've just displayed in regards to your parents, she'd slap me silly. Maybe it's different in your family. If it is then I'm very, very sorry for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 2:54 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 151 of 252 (288775)
02-20-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by robinrohan
02-20-2006 6:21 AM


Re: Shortness of life
I'm talking about the design of a human being. We were "designed" by nature--mindlessly.
No, you were designed by the very mindful mating of your parents, who (presumably) did not mate at random, but according to what characteristics in each other they felt would result in good children.
Mate choice is not random; it's a powerful influence we have on the morphology of our children. And that doesn't even get into rearing and education, where a child becomes a parent's dreams made manifest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 6:21 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 5:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 152 of 252 (288776)
02-20-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-20-2006 12:02 PM


Re: Shortness of life
It does seem that being able to choose your child's sex, hair color, etc. may be on the horizon.
You can largely do all that now. It's simply a matter of mate choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-20-2006 12:02 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 154 of 252 (288810)
02-20-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by robinrohan
02-20-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Shortness of life
What, a woman picks a tall husband because she wants her children to be tall?
Yeah.
Maybe it's under her awareness, but we're attracted to what we're attracted to often because it's a function of what genes we think we're likely to get. We're attracted to people who are the same as our parents in visual ways because that stands a chance of reinforcing genes that we have a sense are good; we're attracted to highly exotic persons in order to gain hybrid vigor.
Mostly, though, it's not under anybody's awareness. "She's beautiful; she'll have such beautify daughters." "His sons will be so tall and handsome." What do you think people mean with those sorts of comments? People dream about the children that they'd have with a mate, sometimes before they even know the person's name.
Is this really a surprise to you? Did you really think that human beings mated completely at random, or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 5:08 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 5:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 158 of 252 (288875)
02-20-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by robinrohan
02-20-2006 5:39 PM


Re: Shortness of life
I thought people married or mated with others because they were attracted to them not because they might produce attractive children.
Why do you think they find them attractive? Indeed, most people seem to be attracted to what statistically makes for healthy children. We find symmetrical faces and bodies attractive because symmetry connotes good health; fascinatingly, almost all human beings can reliably asertain immune compatibility in a mate from their body odor - we find more compatible mates more attractive, olifactorialy.
Heterosexual men tend to be attracted to hourglass figures and full breasts; wide hips mean a greater chance of the female surviving birth and providing more offspring. Full breasts mean good health (since breasts shrink as a result of starvation) and a capacity to nourish children.
Heterosexual women tend to be attracted to fitness and strength, connoting the power to protect and provide; so too are they attracted to the display of wealth and the command of resources or influence. Many women are attracted to beards, coarse facial and body hair being a secondary indicator of testosterone levels.
I mean, I could go on and on. Of course we choose mates to design our children. We percieve that many times as "attraction", but it's not-so-surprising that what we find attractive generally has very much to do with what would be most advantageous for passing on our genes in a child.
Some couples don't have any children and don't want any.
True, but irrelevant.
And anyway our basic body structure is still designed by nature.
And predictably, now we're getting into the circular definitions. Presumably you're about to define "basic" as "anything that can't be influenced by mate choice."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 5:39 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 8:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 160 of 252 (288896)
02-20-2006 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by robinrohan
02-20-2006 8:28 PM


Re: Shortness of life
I'm talking about things like having arms and legs and brains, and you're talking about hair color and eye color.
And unless you've become a creationist, you know that these are all examples of genetic traits. The fact that we have arms and legs and brains is attributable to evolution, aka natural selection and random mutation, and mate choice is natural selection.
We're not designed by "nature". We're designed by a succession of mate choice; people choosing to mate with those who had the traits that another person felt would make for good children.
Why do you think the rich-looking guy at the bar gets play from all the attractive ladies? Because women like the smell of money? No, of course not. They're attracted to a mate who displays an ability to provide resources to their children. We call these things "security" and "fitness" but it's all about choosing mates for reproductive success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 8:28 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 9:19 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 252 (288941)
02-20-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by robinrohan
02-20-2006 9:19 PM


Re: Shortness of life
Really . . . You seriously think that's the way life works?
For the vast majority of human history, where marriage and mating was a tool for cementing political relationships and managing property? Absolutely that's the way life works. To wit, Jane Austen:
quote:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
Even today, where we mate based on our feelings and attractions? Absolutely that's the way life works. Through my dating years, I always thought I liked brunettes and readheads. Disdained blondes. Then I thought back to the girls I dated. All blondes except for one of them. Looked over at my wife - I'm married to a blonde.
My mom is blonde. Did I wind up with a mate very similar to the ethnogenetic stock from which I myself sprang? Absolutely I did. Did I do any of this out of willful intent? My intent was to date anybody but blondes.
Absolutely that's the way life works. Our attractions are not random or subjective, as evidenced by infant studies. Even newborn infants prefer the faces of supermodels to the super-ugly. Do you really think that the newborn has sex on the brain? Of course not. That newborn is already programmed, however, with influences about what traits he or she is going to look for in a mate.
You accept without question, I presume, the idea that genetics bears a powerful influence over what gender we wind up sexually attracted to. Is it so hard to believe that genetic or other organic influences could inform what else we base our sexual attraction on? That I might like blondes, despite all pretensions to the contrary, because blonde women are more likely to carry genes that are more similar to, and will therefore tend to reinforce, the genes that I myself carry?
The idea that our mate choice is simply a function of our own preferences operating in a vacumn, or a function of finding a "soulmate", is beyond naive. Absolutely that's the way life works - we choose the mates we do largely to provide the most advantageous combination of our genes and theirs avaliable, and to ensure the greatest avaliability of resources for our children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by robinrohan, posted 02-20-2006 9:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 5:44 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 166 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 6:09 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 167 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 7:56 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 174 of 252 (289072)
02-21-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by robinrohan
02-21-2006 6:09 AM


Re: Shortness of life
When I was young I wanted to marry someone who was intelligent, goodlooking, and sweet.
Right. And those traits appeal to you because they connote a facility towards parenting. An intelligent parent is able to respond better to threats; a good looking parent is likely healthy and fit and lacks disease; and a sweet parent is not likely to abuse or harm their children.
But I wasn't thinking about some supposed children we might or might not have.
Irrelevant. The fact that it did not occur at the level of your conscious intellect is not contradictory with the fact that your mate choice was based on what would be best for your children.
Or did you think that you're just attracted to certain characteristics at random?
I just wanted such a person so I myself would be happy.
Why do you think you need those characteristics in a mate - and not, say, ugliness, denseness, or a sour disposition - to be happy in the first place? Random chance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 6:09 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by robinrohan, posted 02-22-2006 2:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 252 (289074)
02-21-2006 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by robinrohan
02-21-2006 8:31 AM


Re: Shortness of life
I'm not sure how we could know that since it's unconscious.
It's not always unconscious. But we can test it with statistics, as I've already stated. We find strong correlations between what people report as "attractive" and what would indicate strong genetic advantages in a mate.

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 179 of 252 (289307)
02-21-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by nator
02-21-2006 12:59 PM


Re: Shortness of life
Back in the day when we were still quadripedal and before we wore clothing, the female buttocks was the main sexual attractant.
Some guys like big butts, and they cannot lie (you other brothers can't deny), so I'm not sure all that much has changed. Who knew Sir Mix-A-Lot was an evolutionary throwback? (Besides everybody that ever listened to his music, I mean.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 12:59 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 182 of 252 (289527)
02-22-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Murphy
02-22-2006 10:44 AM


Re: The problem identified?
Are you trying to say that when some psychologist makes a diagnosis that all other psychologists would make the same diagnosis?
Are you saying that we don't know something unless we have 100% agreement on it? That because we don't know everything, we know nothing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 10:44 AM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 11:37 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 186 of 252 (289547)
02-22-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Murphy
02-22-2006 11:37 AM


Re: The problem identified?
Read my question and read the statement that it questioned.
I did. Since there was absolutely no relationship between your question and the statement that prompted it, I presumed you wouldn't mind if I did the same thing to you.
Are you going to answer the question, or not?
The concept of 2+2=4 will always be correct.
Fascinating, but irrelevant. Science is not a form of mathematics; moreover, the statements of mathematics are only true because they're assumed to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 11:37 AM Murphy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 189 of 252 (289594)
02-22-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by robinrohan
02-22-2006 2:45 PM


Re: what we find attractive
Here all this time I was concerned about these potential children, whereas I thought it was all about my pleasures.
Again you're trying to draw this as some kind of dichotomy. It's both - you find some things pleasurable in the first place because they connote advantageous genetic traits you should be interested in.
Why does food taste so good when you're hungry? Why is eating a satisfying meal such a pleasurable experience? Surely you don't question that a considerable part of that is your body rewarding your consciousness for doing something your body needed to have happen; is it really so surprising to you that sex, another function the body mandates, would operate in a similar fashion?
I simply can't understand your incredulity at learning this. Did you really think that human attraction was a function entirely of free will? Why do so many married people look like their spouses? Did you think that happened by coincidence?
However, there might be some pale, anemic women with long black hair that I most certainly would find attractive, despite the fact they aren't that healthy and probably would not be very good at childbearing or rearing.
Do you know that they are actually anemic? My guess is that you would find actual poor health sort of a turn-off. Most people looking to score don't go to hospitals. There's a difference between being pale and having a pallor. One is an indication that one has not been out in the sun a lot - an indicator that they're not going to die of skin cancer, perhaps - and the other is a genuine indicator of disease. My guess is that you would find one attractive and one less so. Unless your idea of a hot saturday night is to cruse the chemotherapy wards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by robinrohan, posted 02-22-2006 2:45 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 02-22-2006 3:16 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 194 by robinrohan, posted 02-22-2006 4:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 193 of 252 (289604)
02-22-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
02-22-2006 3:16 PM


Re: what we find attractive
Um, aren't we all attracted to food or quantities of food that isn't good for us? 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.
No, you're supposed to eat all those things. A diet devoid of fats or carbohydrate will kill you.
The reason that you see negative health effects for eating "what the body wants" is because, for the first time in 40,000 years, people like you and I (about 1% of the Earth population) get enough to eat.
That has rarely been the case throughout human evolution. It's rarely the case now, for that matter. Your body demands carbs and fats and other things that it isn't healthy to have too much of because it doesn't expect to ever eat again. Your body's nutritional program has evolved under a situation where not eating again anytime soon was a realistic possibility.
Humans, in general, will find their appetite increased simply by a greater avaliability of food. You tend to feel hungry enough to eat what is put in front of you because your body doesn't rely on being able to eat again.
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.
Of course. If you were going to eat a meal, and then not be able to rely on ever eating another meal again, you'd want to have eaten the fatty, carbo-loaded stuff because that's the stuff that's going to keep you from starving the longest.
Your body's nutritional goal is not a long and healthy life. It's to be able to maintain the functions you need to survive and reproduce for as long as possible absent reliable nutritional intake.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-22-2006 03:52 PM

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 8:31 AM crashfrog 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