.com.unity Forums - Psychology NOT religion

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Psychology NOT religion (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=7864)

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Shang:

First of all don't worry about potential offense and such. Just say what you must and the rest can be sorted out later. Second, I myself am a Psych major and nothing I have said contradicts what I have learned.

I'll try to address your concerns as best as I can but please try not to turn this into a semantic argument. When you asked whether we believed that humans were xenophobic or not the implied definition of xenophobia is considerably broader than the clinical definition. If it were otherwise the answer would have to be 'no' since the entirety of the human race does not meet the criteria of being clinically xenophobic.

Also note that my original post was a casual reply on a game forum, not a thesis defense, so a certain amount inacuracy was intended in my statement both for the sake of brevity and so that I didn't bore anyone (or myself) with psychobabble.

As far considering other races to be 'human' I was not refering to hominids. I was refering to other races of man that still currently exist (ie. blacks, whites, asians, indians, natives, aborigines, etc., and countless subGroups within each). I meant that even as recently as a century ago it was publicly acceptable to view people of other other subdivisions of man (not hominids) as something other than human. As far as the church being responsible for this (I assume that you are reffering to catholicism specifically and christianity in general) I can't disagree with you more. The tendancy to view people of other tribes/clans/city-states/countries/etc. as sub-human is found cross-culturally throughout history, pre- and post-christianity. Do you want proof other than the historical record? take a look at a group of young kids and see how they treat the ones that are different. They aren't taught to tease the fat kid (or whatever) they just do.

When I said that �Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation�� I was not saying that xenophobia was a physical thing. I was instead refering to the collection of behaviours and attitudes that we attribute to those we would label as 'xenophobic'(ie. unprompted aggression and hatred of those 'different' than themselves based solely on their inherent qualities rather than due to their behaviour, or something like that). As far as most animals being xenophobic, there's evidence to suggest that they are. Animals try to automatically drive of (aka. kill) any competitors for their ecoloical niche. An example would be a rat. A rat, when first encountering a mouse, will bite the mouse on the back of the neck and shake till the it snaps. This is an instinctive behaviour that occurs even in rats that have never been exposed to mice before. The key here is that the xenophobic reaction (usually) only occurs when there is a conflict between species over a spot on the food chain (or something similar) and so threatens their survival. What I said had nothing to do with altruism theory and I am not sure what point you were trying to make.

When I said that we had the capacity to over-ride instinct I did not mean that we were tame as a species. I said that we could inhibit our instincts "especially... when the motivating force behind the instinct has been tamed". I meant that we have tamed the immediate threat to our survival. When you claim that we are still in a daily fight for survival I have to say thee nay. The consideration of death rerely enters our lives. Mothers and children are both expected to live through child-birth, we expect to be able to get to work/get food without having to defend our lives, etc. Most of the motivating force behind going to work is not for survival (that is conceptually, if not realistically, a given) but instead to put an extra car in the driveway or to get a big screen tv. That motivation has little to do with survival and more to do with the need to achieve.

When loooking at equality you must recognize how far western civilization (and the world at large) has come. Just a century ago (less in some places) racial slurs and racism in general was accepted and even encouraged. Thanks to WWII (specifically Hitler, even psychos can serve a purpose) that changed and there has since been a worldwide push to view humanity as one. This is only possible because we no longer need to compete with each other to meet the basic elements of survival. When I refered to animal rights activists, vegans, and so on I meant that if you were hunting for your hungry clan and some madman jumped out and started yelling that cows have feelings too you would probably club the man over the head to end his misery and then take the cow back to your hungry family. We can choose divergent views only when we don't have to ocus on more pressing matters.

When I say "species wide benevolence" I am refering to the current state of tollerance that humans are showing in the late 20th century/early 21st C not to some kind of instinct. As far as our bloodthirsty/benevolence capability I don't see it as a problem. It all depends on context. If we have a dog that we love we tend to think of it as a member of the family. If that dog tries to take a bite out of a kid we take said dog out back and do him like old yeller. I see no problem with that. It is all part of being a complex social organism.

When I said that we have been evolving for 2 billion years I meant it. From little squishy things in the mud to bipedal monkeys to us. I was not implying that our genes were guiding us or any such thing like that, I meant that 2 billion years of evolution fashioned a creature capable of rising to the top of the food chain without using toth or claw. Instead we had to use ingenuity, aggression and tennacity, more than any other creature before us.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

EDIT: irrelevent comment, did not read rest of thread first. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

[ December 08, 2002, 00:42: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Re: Psychology NOT religion

All good points, I agree on some but see flaws with others. That is the greatest thing about science in general. Drifting off topic are you doing any research as yet? Studying for a BD degree or generalized? Do you think this thread acts as a SR- or SR+ for students of psychology being general? Also what do you think of language do you fell it is along my personal concept of developing from OC or maybe CC, if not what from than?

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Pres-Elect Shang,

Quote:

Are humans xenophobic? Hell yeah! It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be "human". We are the meanest, most aggressive, most bloodthirsty race on the planet. If we weren't we never would have made it this far.

I read and still do, as ALL Humanoids. Since the declaration;

Quote:

It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be "human".

It continues, with no break into;

Quote:

We are the meanest, most aggressive, most bloodthirsty race on the planet".

That makeS the "we" collective. Does it not? Therefore "We" have not considered anything other than human's to exist!

Now to,

Quote:

When I read your line it tends to reminded me more of a schema than a paradigm.

I do suppose it is more stimuli than anything else actually. However, I prescribe to many thought processes.

mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Not stimuli but schema, the perception of correlated things. Like a restaurant schema: go in get food pay. Now I see you�re point, the �we� and �collective.� All right I can adjust to run with that.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

This topic has wandered into several areas of particular interest to me. Quotes are P.E. Shang, unless noted otherwise.

Quote:

I think that has more to do with religion denying the idea of other Homonids than it does with xenophobia.

I'd interpret that as religion being used to justify the xenophobia.

Quote:

In all of human history there is far fewer years of peace compared to years of war

"It was the will of our ancestors that the gateway of Janus Quirinus should be shut when victories had secured peace by land and sea throughout the whole empire of the Roman people; from the foundation of the city to my birth, tradition records that it was shut only twice [by Numa and Manlius], but while I was the leading citizen the Senate resolved that it should be shut on three occasions.
[Augustus, My achievements 13; tr. P. Brunt and J. Moore]

Quote:

For comparison (not a very good one mind you but it makes the point) we may debate what a rock is made of (quartz, gypsum, granite) but we do not debate the rock

This whole thread has been from a Western viewpoint; several Eastern philosophies would claim that the rock, along with all the rest of our perceptions, is an illusion.

Quote:

Psychologists are not here to take away god

In my experience, they don't deal with religion very well, though. I've had therapists tell me my religious faith interferes with the treatment of my clinical depression. (And I'm not from a denomination that trusts faith more than medicine.)

Quote:

What is IMHO anyway?

In My Humble/Honest Opinion; IMO, adding the H is pretentious in either meaning.

Quote:

(Quarian Rex:) if you were hunting for your hungry clan and some madman jumped out and started yelling that cows have feelings too you would probably club the man over the head to end his misery and then take the cow back to your hungry family.

More Western thought. A devout Hindu would consider eating cows blasphemous.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Quote:

I suppose that physics and all other sciences should take into account the effects of a spiritual aspect. Do you really believe this? You�re counter point does not hold weight in any true debate because you are speaking and viewing in a most non-scientific light. Spiritual does not fit into any modern day science.

No, I don't believe spiritual things are involved in science. I also don't believe that there is a science--observable, repeatable, verifiable, quantifiable science--of the mind. Psychology does not fit into the sciences, as they have been traditionally understood. The mind cannot be observed or measured; the scientific method cannot be applied to the mind. I am definitely not a materialist; I do believe that non-material, extra-scientific things exist. I do not believe that man, or science, is the measure of all things.

Having said that, I do believe that true science is vital to our understanding of the world and universe around us. Experimental, testable, repeatable science has been the drive for our advances from the Renaissance through the Industrial Age to the present.

Quote:

You�re reaction is just the one that I was referring to when I stated that the opinion toward psychologists has already been tainted. Did it ever occur to you that Copernicus faced the same difficulty in his time? That style of thinking did not change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.

That's a classic Bulverism (see logic or C.S. Lewis). I differ with psychology because it discounts the existence of a spiritual aspect to man. The Roman Catholic Church of Copernicus' day differed with him because it went against their tradition.

Quote:

I am sorry but I cannot see what you�re point is other than to throw what I have stated here out the window because it makes the idea of the spirit and god come into question.

If you mean that I view mainstream psychology and any religion as incompatible, then yes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif One is materialistic, and the other is spiritual. You can't explain everything as chemical interaction and still maintain that there's something non-material about man.

Quote:

If all science relied on that style of thinking we would be living in thatched huts plowing with crude iron tools.

Actually, many traditional scientists believed in God. Newton, Pascal, and Faraday, to name just three, were all Christians. Not to change the debate, but anyone who believes in God believes that He created the world with order and design, and looks for that order in the world. Christians (and many of the ancient civilizations) knew the world was round long before modern science "rediscovered" it. You view religion as an impediment to science; I view it as an aid. Behavioral psychology views man (and everything else) as a slew of interacting chemicals (since that's where we've come from); religion views man as a designed creation which requires a Creator.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Quote:

In My Humble/Honest Opinion; IMO, adding the H is pretentious in either meaning.

And I've been chewed out before (not here) for being arrogant because I didn't add the H. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Guess you can't please everyone all the time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[edit: poorly constructed sentence. Need sleep. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ]

[ December 08, 2002, 04:16: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Just re-read the Last several Posts, and wanted to make something clear. I tend to state my views very pointedly. I am a very black and white person (not at all in that Michael Jackson sort of way). I'm not saying that everyone who practices or studies psychology believes the way I've described here. The founders of psychology, however, did believe like that, and did view religion as an out-dated stumbling block to evolutionary progress, and their theories reflect that. If modern psychology has drifted from that, though, I haven't seen it in cases I'm familiar with. If current theory being taught differs, I'm open to hear about it. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings about "head-in-the-sand religious bigots." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Psychology NOT religion

P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Caponq: now that�s some good stuff. Thank you for the input. About the religion part it was only my conjuncture, I don�t try to say it is or is not the/a problem. I only mean to offer one possibility amongst many. Over the eastern viewpoint I don�t have much knowledge but wouldn�t Buddhists say the same thing as Hinduism? I really don�t know maybe you can shed another light on this topic for us all. Psychologists don�t deal with religion at all. I feel (my opinion only) that religion is better left to theology and philosophy. Point in fact (I respect physics so much I like to use it for examples) physicists don�t deal with god but they are not considered wrong for it.

For krsk: I see your point and agree that they are not compatible. I don�t think that psychology should be moved into the Arts and Humanities though because the neural processes that operate your hand and thus your mind and finally your behavior can be measured and controlled in labs. For an example look at a person that suffers for a sever blow to the head and caused the loss speech. Their behavior has most certainly been modified by a quantifiable effect. But I DO NOT let me stress DO NOT view religion as an impediment to science. My original post that spawned this (if you read back) was only offering an explanation it was not a statement. You are right to say that psychology started in anti-religion views. Also it is worth noting that most of the originators of those theories did not consider themselves to be psychologists. Modern day psychology, at least the behavioral paradigm avoids the topic of religion. This is not intended to imply that there is no spirit or god; it is simply that a spirit with present day technology cannot be quantified. Behaviorists such as myself want to understand what can be seen and measured of which thought process cannot. I don�t believe that this is ground to move us out of the science field though. Once again I must point out that that other sciences do not attempt to fit the spirit into the picture either. Finally you stated �Actually, many traditional scientists believed in God. Newton, Pascal, and Faraday, to name just three, were all Christians.� Do you mean to imply that all psychologists are non-Christians or is this stereotyping? Either way it still does not tie into the claim that religion is a part of science and thus psychology in that one respect cannot be science.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I thought you had to special ops to do that?

Re: Psychology NOT religion

If you made the first post, you can still edit it, and change the subject while you're at it.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Quote:

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I thought you had to special ops to do that?<hr /></blockquote>Edit the first post, and change the subject line.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, wow learn something new everyday. Thank you.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

President Elect Shang,

Quote:

Not stimuli but schema, the perception of correlated things.

Quote:

Definition from Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary;

Main Entry: sche�ma
Pronunciation: 'skE-m&
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural sche�ma�ta /-m&-t&/; also schemas
Etymology: Greek schEmat-, schEma
Date: circa 1890
1 : a diagrammatic presentation; broadly : a structured framework or plan : OUTLINE
2 : a mental codification of experience that includes a particular organized way of perceiving cognitively and responding to a complex situation or set of stimuli.

"Stimuli" is a subset. or part of schema. If you will. My comment stands! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And "learning" is always good. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Anything but Plato's eulogy of the cave
dont ask me the core questions... Ill kill you all if you ask me the core questions...
hehehe
inside joke
(with myself)

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Instar, what are the core questions?

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Whoooeeee, what a lot of tangled ideas! These several topics are rather closely related, though.

Krsqk, who do you consider to be the 'founders' of Psychology? Freud was certainly an atheist, being a member of the Positivist movement and the Vienna Circle in particular. But 'psychology' was not his invention. And even his own movement - Psychoanalysis - had some rebels who disagreed with his reductionist views, Carl Jung being the most notable. Certainly there are many psychologists today who want to reduce the human mind to chemical activity in the brain. You can read some frightening things in the works of Thomas Szaz, a leading critic of modern 'industrial' psychology/psychiatry. But the 'reductionists' are not the only school of psychology.

Plato's analogy of the Cave was actually intended to deal with just this sort of mentality. Even in his time there were 'materialists' who discounted anything other than what could be learned through the senses. Being chained up so you can only look at the 'shadows' of things is his image of the sort of person who will only consider the senses as a source of information. Jung's psychology has often been compared to Platonism with 'archetypes' functioning so much like the 'forms' of Platonic philosophy. Like Plato, Jung kept saying there were other sources of information that just the senses. Poor Jung often got tarred as 'anti-modern' for his resistance to reductionism.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Hello there.

This is one of the more interesting topics I've seen in a loong time.

First, QuarianRex, you have defended / explained the "Heinlein POV" better than anyone else I have seen. Congratulations !

Second, I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the sciences dealing with Man (psychology, sociology, philosophy, even economics) and the 'exact' sciences. This is because 'human' sciences (I do not call them Humanities because that has a separate meaning) cannot really use the scientific method in its entirety and must rely mostly on observation. An attempt to design and run scientific experiments in these fields would probably be illegal.

You cannot build Plato's cave (I mean, you can, but it would be illegal and monstrous too), you can only search for situations that are similar to it and try to draw your conclusions from those.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

BTW Vocabulary: Paradigm
I was not sure what it ment.
This arrived in my inbox today:
TODAY'S eTIP(TM): TODAY'S WORD: Paradigm

paradigm (PAYR eh diym)

noun

a) a pattern, example, or model

b) an overall concept accepted by most people in an intellectual
community, as those in one of the natural sciences, because of
its effectiveness in explaining a complex process, idea, or set
of data

To see a paradigm of Art Deco architecture, visit New York
City's Chrysler Building.
this is from:
DUMMIES DAILY: Word of the Day
http://www.dummiesdaily.com
Hope this helps.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

For more information on paradigms in general, see "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas S. Kuhn. (originally published in 1962 as part of "Foundations of the Unity of Science").

I reserve the right to re-enter this debate later; I'm catching up on the forums from work, and it's almost time to go home http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Can we have Para-Psychology without Para-Psychotics?

If you can catch Religion, can you also catch Pyschology?

Is a Pair-a-dime the same as two-bits?

P.S. Einstein included God in his theories, but he had to edit the references out.

Re: Psychology NOT religion

Quote:

Is a Pair-a-dime the same as two-bits?

They're not the same. Pair-a-dime = 20 cents. Two-bits = 25 cents. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ December 10, 2002, 07:21: Message edited by: Kamog ]

Re: Psychology NOT religion