Psychology NOT religion

[mlmbd]

Tisk, tisk, tisk! Shame, shame, shame!

Oh HI, Kamog!

mlmbd

[Kamog]

Oh, hello, mlmbd !

[Fyron]

Shang, you can't simply say "you're wrong". You need to show how the person is wrong. Leaving it to private email doesn't really work for a public forum. What about everyone else that is/was reading and responding to the Posts? Why should they be excluded?

[President_Elect_Shang]

Ok, let me start off by saying that Imperator Fyron is correct when he states “Leaving it to private email doesn't really work for a public forum. What about everyone else that is/was reading and responding to the Posts? Why should they be excluded?”
This is an excellent observation and I stand corrected. Thank you Imperator Fyron. I am not offering an excuse for myself I simply want to point out that most people cringe when psychologists enter a room. It is my speculation that this reaction is thanks to Freud.

Before I begin allow me to set up four conventions.
First: The explanation I offer is for critical reading and though it reflects the knowledge and training I have gained thus far in psychology it may prove to be wrong. Psychology is a living science and as with any living science there is always room for error and thus growth. This is merely a reflection given to the best of my ability.
Second: As I create this explanation I will attempt to keep it as lay but concise as possible. This is not mean to be an insult. I only intend to make for easy reading, not sound like a textbook so to speak. I am sure that I will sound like a textbook, as the number of errors made by QuarianRex is numerous.
Third: To shorting this post I have attempted to avoid reposting QuarianRex but it was necessary in some parts, where necessary I will proceed QuarianRex with a (Q). I had to so that I could formulate a proper reply and you may want to read it to follow along. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you. Also I am not an English major so don’t beat me down for any type O’s.
Fourth: A person in the Cognitive paradigm may not agree with my answer in part or whole. I respect my brothers and their viewpoint; however, I am of the Behavioral paradigm and thus cannot answer as they would.

(Q) “It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be “human.” This may be correct; my point was not over the validity of the statement but over the accuracy. It can be debated that our inclusion of other species of hominid, which I believe QuarianRex means by “human” is a reflection of the development of xenophobic viewpoints. I however believe that the church has more to do with it than anything. The admittance of other hominids is disruptive to the concept of a god created man. In other words evolution vs. creationism is not my field and I am not attempting to point fingers or support either view.

(Q) “Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation…” This is referred to as reification. Meaning that you have given name to an abstraction and treating it as if it is real. No one can open up your head, remove and measure something called xenophobia. I called it a nominal fallacy earlier and must correct myself now. The instinct that (Q) is referring to psychologist have studied in detail. If it was xenophobia than all animals can be called xenophobic. This is clearly wrong. The “Social Exchange Theory” which simply put states: When a member of a species commits an altruistic act it is only when they are most likely to receive help back in the future. The genes for pure asterism have most likely been removed from the gene pool by natural selection. Simply a birds warning call puts that one bird at a greater risk since it attracts the attention of the predator. Thus birds that made warning calls all the time for any species have been removed from the gene pool already. Humans display what is termed altruistic behavior but this is simply not true. Yes you may stop to help that stranger in need but ask yourself whom you are more likely to help a stranger or one of your neighbors? There are also a few other factors involved all of which have been studied. For example the bystander effect: you are less likely to assist if many other witnesses are present, guilt will increase the likely hood of helping, mood at the time and even more that I will not mention.

(Q) states that we can override instinct. I agree with this but his calling it tamed is in question only because tamed is a term better applied to beasts. There is no debate that we override or instincts but it is more likely to be a combined factor of culture and our parenting along with genetic influenced aggressive tendencies. Our ability to “think” and “reason” weighed with the knowledge of the laws of our culture are also factors to consider. If being tame was truly the factor in question than we would not need to have the laws against murder and theft to name a few. Ask yourself when the Last time was you have seen a tame dog attack a human. They can be provoked, and in some inbreeding has caused mental instability but it is not the norm only the exception. As for (Q’s) claim to day-to-day survival this is simple not true. This viewpoint is most likely created by human egotism and the miss leading effect of the English language. Day-to-day survival is very much alive and well, it is the force that makes humans get up and go to work for instance. It may not have the classical guise of hunting for pray but you cannot refer to any instinct in a partial manner (as (Q) does) any more than you can refer to partial gravity or partial physics. It is simply not scientific. For the statement of equality I would like to know what is equal in our culture or any for that matter. If humans, in the partial context (Q) refers to, where truly equal than there would be no need for animal rights activists. The green peace movement is not just for the animal habitat it is also recognition of human dependency on the environment. This is getting lengthy and I did warn of it before hand. Stay with me I am almost done. Vegetarians are a choice in diet and should not be assumed as anything else. Humans are omnivores by evolution but particular tastes and choices of food vary by availability and culture and not by a desire to save the animals, if this where the case than vegetarians are taking from the herbivores.

In all of human history there is far fewer years of peace compared to years of war (to the best of my knowledge), therefore I submit to you the reader my conclusion that there is no such thing as “[(Q)] our species wide benevolence.” If such a thing did apply than it would apply to us before it applied to another life extraterrestrial or otherwise. (Q) himself points to animal rights activists, why do we have them if we are benevolent? He is also contradicting himself when he makes the statements that we are “the meanest, most aggressive, most blood thirsty race on the planet.” How can you be both benevolent and bloodthirsty? “… reverting to the efficient engines of destruction that two billion years of evolution has shaped us to be.” This is a colorful metaphor but does not hold water so to speak. At what point did humans throw off the tendencies to not destroy? To the best of my knowledge it is the ongoing process of destruction that leads to global wars and armed uprising to mention a few. (Q) also seems pretty specific in that two billion years of evolution refers to humans and not all life. As I stated above you cannot call a dog or frog xenophobic so he must be referring to humans. This is simply not a true statement for any other reason than humans have only been on this world in any form for four to five million years. After a little research at the University of Berkeley website I found Phonix-D’s statement that two billion years is pre-dinosaur was correct. Two billion years ago is the beginning of the first fossil records of life on earth. I really doubt they where xenophobic at any point. Finally let me say that you cannot label genes as xenophobic that would be teleological. Meaning that it would say or imply that genes of any species evolved for xenophobia. This put another way would imply that genes themselves are capable of directing their own evolution to some goal or purpose. I could be wrong but I believe that Darwin put that notion to rest; I believe that what (Q) is referring to would be closer to Lamarck’s Theory of Evolution.

Thank you for your time and patients,
President-Elect Shang

Edit: I like this new avatar so much!

[ December 07, 2002, 19:57: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Kamog]

Please define what is meant by "Cognitive paradigm" and "Behavioral paradigm". I don't know if I support either viewpoint, because I don't understand what they are.

Regarding "reification", I don't understand the point that was being made. We have to give xenophobia a name, even though it is an abstraction, because we cannot have a discussion without a name for it. I don't see a problem with that. But I don't think that was the point...

[President_Elect_Shang]

Sure Kamog, let me see if I can help out. In psychology today there are two prevailing viewpoints; called a paradigm you may look the word up in a dictionary if I am not clear enough. These are not the only two mind you, just the major two. The Cognitive paradigm attempts to understand behavior not just (over simplified) by the actions or behavior of the organism, but also by the mental processes going on in the brain. The Behavioral paradigm is not attempting to infer or understand the mental process, it is much too difficult because it cannot be measured or quantified, and thus it is scientifically inadequate. An example may help:
You open the fridge door to get milk.
Cognitive paradigm: Not sure what they would say, maybe along the lines of you open the fridge because you are thinking about how thirsty you are. To be clear you will need to find someone of this discipline and ask him or her the same question.
Behavioral paradigm: In the past you have had success at getting milk by going to the fridge and opening the door, the proximate cause may be inferred as a signal from the brain in response to a chemical imbalance that creates thirst. I could go on further but it not important for our example. Why did you get milk? Heck if I know ask a biologist. What is the signal from the brain? Ask a neuroscientist.
As to the xenophobia yes it is the topic of the discussion. If you read what Q wrote in his post he is applying xenophobia to all species. This is what makes it reification. To be clearer he is moving it from a topic of discussion and applying it to humans etc as if it is a real and quantifiable thing. 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 itself. We can debate the notion or concept of xenophobia in all it’s forms, but we cannot measure it with our current technology, so we must avoid giving it permanency. The English language however is structured to give all things a name and place in the world and this can cause and has caused for many misunderstandings. For example the psychologist Richard Dawkins was physically attacked and badly beaten because a layperson did not take the time to understand what he was saying. Psychologists are not here to take away god or confuse and confound you. Psychology like any other science is here to improve humankind and since it is still a relatively new discipline (only about 150 or so years old) there remain many misunderstandings and bigotries toward the field and it’s students. I am getting wordy again so let me cut this post off now.

[ December 07, 2002, 23:23: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Krsqk]

IMHO, both paradigms are insufficient explanations of human behavior. The behavioral paradigm ignores any mental process because it cannot be quantified. In essence, it reduces everything to a biological or chemical function. The cognitive paradigm, on the other hand, attempts to scientifically approach the unscientific. You can't observe or quantify or even verifiably repeat mental processes.

IMHO, the main failure of mainstream psychology is a focus on the observable and material, while excluding the existence of a spiritual aspect to man. Psychology may not try to get rid of God or any religion, but its theories exclude the possibility of the existence (or at least the influence) of anything extra-observable.

[President_Elect_Shang]

You point out that both are insufficient. 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. 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. 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 all science relied on that style of thinking we would be living in thatched huts plowing with crude iron tools.

What is IMHO anyway?

[mlmbd]

Pres-Elect Shang, since you qualified your post as to it's intent and content

A person in the Cognitive paradigm may not agree with my answer in part or whole. I respect my brothers and their viewpoint; however, I am of the Behavioral paradigm and thus cannot answer as they would.

I will not disagree with your posting! What a break, for you!

I would like to expand on your template, If I might?
First, [quote] (Q) "It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be "human." If we except "Last couple hundred years" as 2(two) or 3(three) at the very most. That is totally incorrect! One example is a man named " Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)" or "Ganesa (1507-some time after 1564)". I could continue, but I am sure you get my point! I did say since all of your post was qualified, I wouldn't disagree with YOUR comments!

Second,

we are "the meanest, most aggressive, most blood thirsty race on the planet."

We are the only race on this planet. Unless there has been a huge discovery, that no one told me about!

Third, and Last,

As for (Q’s) claim to day-to-day survival this is simple not true.

I agree this is not true. But for entirely different reasons. What is being referred to is explainable as "survival of the fittest". This simply stated; "biological evolution presumably functions by mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection." Natural selection is supposed to operate through differential reproduction or "survival-of-the-fittest." Whether you agree with theory it's self or not.

Krsqk, your opinions and objections are noted! I do not Subscribe to a single "paradigm", though. Since "paradigms," or "conceptual world-views" are varied, so must my "paradigms" be!

mlmbd

[ December 08, 2002, 00:05: Message edited by: mlmbd ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

Thanks for the break, I am not asking anyone to prescribe to my point of view so it is really pleasant to see someone keeping an open mind and reading for readings sake.
I don’t really see what you are driving at with first point. There are many races amongst humans and we are the only “human species” (if I may be so loose) on this planet since the other two died out x amount of years ago. Can you explain you’re point some for me please? I’m ok with the paradigm part it really has nothing to with the topic and was only my attempt to answer a very good question. If you look in Webster’s though it should give one definition of a paradigm as a set of beliefs that belong to a common view or something to that effect. When I read your line it tends to reminded me more of a schema than a paradigm.

[ December 08, 2002, 00:28: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]