Psychology NOT religion

[QuarianRex]

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.

[Phoenix-D]

EDIT: irrelevent comment, did not read rest of thread first.

Phoenix-D

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

[President_Elect_Shang]

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?

[mlmbd]

Pres-Elect Shang,

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;

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;

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,

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

[President_Elect_Shang]

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.

[capnq]

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

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.

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]

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.

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.)

What is IMHO anyway?

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

(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.

[Krsqk]

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

[Krsqk]

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. Guess you can't please everyone all the time.

[edit: poorly constructed sentence. Need sleep. ]

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

[Krsqk]

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."

[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.