Psychology NOT religion

[President_Elect_Shang]

Has anyone tried to use the optional line:

Comp Family Requirement :=

in the CompEnhancement.txt file?
I can't seem to get the darn thing to work. I have no problems with the enhancement untill I add the line in then "poff" it just stops working after that.

[ December 08, 2002, 05:31: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Suicide Junkie]

The latest Gold Version of P&N uses that for shield generator mounts on units.

Add that line, and fill in the family numbers (separated by commas) for the components that mount is allowed on.

[President_Elect_Shang]

HA-HA-HA-HA

HA-HA-HA-HA

HA-HA-HA-HA

I got it, thanks SJ

[Taz-in-Space]

"and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads." Plato
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wasn't Plato a teacher? Sounds like maybe he was! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Kamog]

That is refering to a story in which there are prisoners chained up inside a dark cave. They are in a position in which they can only see shadows on the wall when some people from the outside walk past, carrying treasures. One day, one of the prisoners breaks free and sees the outside world for the first time. When he returns to the cave to tell the other prisoners, they think he's crazy.

... or something like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[mlmbd]

Kamog, Physics NOT philosophy, eh. A well rounded physicist can use philosophy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

[Cheeze]

And a very round physicist could use some exercise and a better diet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Kamog]

My favorite physicist is Richard P. Feynman. He won the Nobel Prize in 1965 for his work in quantum electrodynamics.

Like many great thinkers, Feynman was very well rounded. Not only did he study other areas of science such as chemistry and biology, he painted and played drums and other musical instruments.

His book, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" is a fascinating and very entertaining book. I highly recommend it.

[mlmbd]

Kamog, excellent choice. An QED, is interesting stuff. Well, to some it interesting anyway!

My favorite physicist would have to, but not limited to, Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac or Enrico Fermi. Their early work in the field (no pun intended) set the stage for present day theory. Both Nobel Prize winners as well.

Oh, I have read "Surely You're Joking" by Mr. Feynman!

Cheeze, LOL

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

[mlmbd]

Kamog, you would happen to be a member of IAMP, would you? As for reading. Might try, if you haven't already that is; "Infinite in All Directions" (1988) or "Disturbing the Universe" (1979) both by Freeman J. Dyson.

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

[Kamog]

OK, I got here by clicking on the link you provided in the Lurker Report thread.

No, I'm not a member of IAMP. Thanks, mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif , I'll check out those books by Dyson you recommended! I love physics...

[mlmbd]

As do I. Herr Kamog, as do I!

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

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Taz-in-Space:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> "and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads." Plato
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wasn't Plato a teacher? Sounds like maybe he was! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm, did I come into this reply late or what?
Yes, He was a teacher.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Kamog:
That is refering to a story in which there are prisoners chained up inside a dark cave. They are in a position in which they can only see shadows on the wall when some people from the outside walk past, carrying treasures. One day, one of the prisoners breaks free and sees the outside world for the first time. When he returns to the cave to tell the other prisoners, they think he's crazy.

... or something like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is taking from the Allegory of the Cave.
I think every one should read it, think on it, then read it again. These are words (sometimes difficult to follow) that still hold truth in our modern age of "knowledge" and "enlightenment".

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Kamog:
My favorite physicist is Richard P. Feynman. He won the Nobel Prize in 1965 for his work in quantum electrodynamics.

Like many great thinkers, Feynman was very well rounded. Not only did he study other areas of science such as chemistry and biology, he painted and played drums and other musical instruments.

His book, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" is a fascinating and very entertaining book. I highly recommend it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mine would have to be B.F. Skinner. Ops, sorry that's psychology.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ November 30, 2002, 05:39: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Kamog]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
It is taking from the Allegory of the Cave.
I think every one should read it, think on it, then read it again. These are words (sometimes difficult to follow) that still hold truth in our modern age of "knowledge" and "enlightenment".<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK, I'll read it...
----------
[Socrates] AND NOW, I SAID, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: BEHOLD! HUMAN BEINGS living in an underground den, which has a mouth open toward the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette? players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
[Glaucon] I see.
[Socrates] AND DO YOU SEE, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
[Glaucon] YOU HAVE SHOWN ME a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
[Socrates] LIKE OURSELVES, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
[Glaucon] TRUE, HE SAID; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
----------
...
This is long. Get the rest from here: http://www.geocities.com/lucid_dawn/cave.html

[President_Elect_Shang]

The sight I pulled it from was:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/ALLEGORY.HTM

Hope that hyperlinks auto.

By a show of hands (ha) how many people would say that we [Homo Saipen Saipen] are for the most part xenophobic. Answer carefully becouse I have the ultamite can of worms that I have wanted to pop the lid open on in this forum. Maybe I should just leave this one alone? Um? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[Kamog]

OK, I say that humans are for the most part NOT xenophobic.

...what is this can of worms you mentioned?

[President_Elect_Shang]

I'm gonna let that one slide for now, put the ole can back on the shelf so to speak. Let's kill this topic my friends. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[mlmbd]

KILL IT! We were having a perfectly nice discussion about Physics and Physicists. Until YOU came along! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by mlmbd:
KILL IT! We were having a perfectly nice discussion about Physics and Physicists. Until YOU came along! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And I thought it was about philosophy. Geez! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ok, lets open this can up. Part one:

Are humans: Mostly zenophobic or not?

I say we are. Look at the way we portray them in our movies, etc.

[Suicide Junkie]

I say we are. Look at the way we portray them in our movies, etc.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Better, look at how we react to wierd earthly critters!

Kids can find something wierd under a rock, then laugh and play with it. Adults will generally recoil in disgust.

I imagine the same sort of thing could happen with non-toxic aliens.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Now that IS a good point SJ. Any other thoughts before I break the main point out in the open?

[mlmbd]

I have a lot of thoughts. But my mommy told me to wait until I know the whole story. Before I voice my opinion.

Not that I really ever listen to her, when I was much much younger! The older I get. The smarter she becomes!

SJ, excelleent points! By the way.

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

[President_Elect_Shang]

Go ahead mlmbd say what you want, this is just a forum and only a forum. Had this been a real debate you would have heard the opening of gun ports prior to firing of all weapons.

[mlmbd]

President Elect Shang, Go ahead mlmbd say what you want, this is just a forum and only a forum. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I said I will wait to see the subject, before I voice an opinion! As to Had this been a real debate you would have heard the opening of gun ports prior to firing of all weapons. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If this had been a REAL debate, what on earth ever gave you the idea you would be around to open gun ports?! Let alone fire all weapons?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I have a small story to tell you. A very very wise man gave me this advise, "don't worry about those that find the need to boast or brags. About their debating prowess. They are simply dealing with an inferiority complex!" This sage advise was given to me on the day of my first collegiate debate. My coach (the individual I am referring to), could tell I was concerned how well I was going to do, in the debate. The team we were facing was the previous years "National Collegiate Debate Tournament Winner". I had good reason to worry, or so it seemed until he dropped that little pearl of wisdom in my lap.

So please don't misinterpret my lack of response, as my being inadequate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

[Kamog]

The can of worms is taken off the shelf! I am glad that we did not kill this topic, although it was President Elect Shang's prerogative to do so, as he was the initiator of this topic.

I say that humans for the most part are NOT xenophobic. If we were xenophobic, we would all be living in a primitive, stone-age society in which all of us spend our lives in our own close-knit little villages, with little knowledge of what is occuring elsewhere in the world.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Good point Kamog. Very good point and shame on me. Kamog (for anyone that is just reading this) is correct. From a pschology point of view fear of large crowds is around number 8 on the most reported scale (can't remember the precise position now. Shame on me, shame on me. I should have been more clear to ask:

Do you think that humans are xenophibic toward the concept of extraterrstrials?

Let me retract my first question and replace it with the correct one above. Shame on me I should have known better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ December 05, 2002, 15:32: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

I never read it that way mlmbd. I never even thought along those lines. Most likely since I lack an ego (that was Freud's little pearl of ignorance) I view everyone as equals till they prove themselves different. Did I mention Freud was a quack? Well that’s a whole debate in itself and I don’t want to go there right now.

[capnq]

Speaking of weird things under rocks, where did the phrase "open a can of worms" originate?

[Phoenix-D]

"Speaking of weird things under rocks, where did the phrase "open a can of worms" originate?"

Probably those joke things where you open a can and a bunch of fake worms fly out in your face.

Phoenix-D

[mlmbd]

President Elect Shang, I never read it that way mlmbd. I never even thought along those lines. Most likely since I lack an ego (that was Freud's little pearl of ignorance) I view everyone as equals till they prove themselves different. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fair enough! Did I mention Freud was a quack? Well that’s a whole debate in itself and I don’t want to go there right now. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, that an entirely different "can of worms". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Do you think that humans are xenophibic toward the concept of extraterrstrials? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This President Elect Shang is an interesting question. You did mean "xenophobic" and "extraterrestrials", correct? May I inquire as the particular "concept" we are talking about? OK, OK, I will assume (I am going to pay for this. Assuming, that is) that you are talking about "concept" in it's generally accepted terminology.

Since a concept is something we "CONCEIVE". In the abstract I would have to say humans in general are very xenophobic about extraterrestrials.

capnq, Speaking of weird things under rocks, where did the phrase "open a can of worms" originate? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can see that smerk on your face, capnq. I really don't have any idea!

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

[Kamog]

Yes, I agree that humans are xenophobic toward the concept of extraterrestrials. In general, humans tend to fear the unknown. In fact, the fear of the unknown can be a stronger emotion than the fear towards a known danger. Since we know nothing about extraterrestrials, not even if they exist or not, it is natural that people feel fear about the idea.

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by capnq:
Speaking of weird things under rocks, where did the phrase "open a can of worms" originate?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ever go fishing with live bait (aka "a can of worms")? Once you open that can & take out the first victim (er, worm) to put on your hook, the rest of the worms crawl all over & it's merry heck trying to get the lid back on without squishing some of them. Hence "open a can of worms" generally means starting any topic that could be difficult to control. At least that's how it was explained to me as a young boy learning how to fish at Grandpa's summer cottage on good old Waneta Lake in western New York state... oh wait, I'm not old enough to get lost in reminiscing... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[QuarianRex]

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.

Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation that promotes the survival of your own genepool. It ensures that you won't waste valuable resources on the preservation of someone (or something) elses genetics.

However, the other trait that seems to be distinctly human (besides being ornery bastards) is our capacity to over-ride instinct. This is especially true when the motivating force behind the instinct has been tamed, in the case it would be survival. For the most part we no longer need to worry about day-to-day survival and so we afford ourselves the luxury of equality.

When I say equality I don't just mean among humans. Animal rights activists, greenpeace, and vegitarians are all products of our self-assured survival.

This would apply to extra-terrestrial contact as well. So long as said contact was peaceful (ie. did not threaten our survival) our species wide benevolence would continue. If, however, our survival were to be called into question we would have no difficulty in reverting to the efficient engines of destruction that two billion years of evolution has shaped us to be.

[Krsqk]

Are humans xenophobic? Not according to this thread (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007571). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
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 think that has more to do with religion denying the idea of other Homonids than it does with xenophobia.

Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation that promotes the survival of your own genepool. It ensures that you won't waste valuable resources on the preservation of someone (or something) elses genetics.

I am majoring in Psychology and what you are speaking of has more to do with the gene conservation theory. Xenophobia is not even a factor. Xenophobia is mainly a nominal fallacy and not an evolutionary trait.

However, the other trait that seems to be distinctly human (besides being ornery bastards) is our capacity to over-ride instinct. This is especially true when the motivating force behind the instinct has been tamed, in the case it would be survival. For the most part we no longer need to worry about day-to-day survival and so we afford ourselves the luxury of equality.

I won’t even touch that. Needless to say you are WAY off. Sorry don’t take it personally it’s only a thread. If you would like me to e-mail you with what’s wrong in that statement than let me know? Long story short is that it would take about a page to show you. Once again what you are speaking of has more to do with the structure and use of English than anything in psychology.

When I say equality I don't just mean among humans. Animal rights activists, greenpeace, and vegitarians are all products of our self-assured survival.

This would apply to extra-terrestrial contact as well. So long as said contact was peaceful (ie. did not threaten our survival) our species wide benevolence would continue. If, however, our survival were to be called into question we would have no difficulty in reverting to the efficient engines of destruction that two billion years of evolution has shaped us to be.

I feel faint, sorry my friend, I truly feel bad because I most whole heartedly promise I am NOT attacking you or attempting to provoke a defense response from you, but you are way, way, way off. Sounds good in English but it just don’t hold up.

Also, there ENTIRE Hominid line has only been around for about 4 to 5 million years. I believe that 2 BILLION would put you in the age of dinosaurs.

[ December 07, 2002, 01:35: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Phoenix-D]

"I feel faint, sorry my friend, I truly feel bad because I most whole heartedly promise I am NOT attacking you or attempting to provoke a defense response from you, but you are way, way, way off. Sounds good in English but it just don’t hold up."

It sounds more like attacking than an explanation would frankly. "You are wrong" doesn't get us very far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

"Also, there ENTIRE Hominid line has only been around for about 4 to 5 million years. I believe that 2 BILLION would put you in the age of dinosaurs."

Eh-eh. Last dinosaur dropped dead around 65 million years ago. 248 million years ago is around when they first appeared.

I think what he's refering to with 2 billion years of evolution is every single organism between him and the first early life. Looks to be about the right time scale.

Phoenix-D

[Kamog]

This would apply to extra-terrestrial contact as well. So long as said contact was peaceful (ie. did not threaten our survival) our species wide benevolence would continue. If, however, our survival were to be called into question we would have no difficulty in reverting to the efficient engines of destruction that two billion years of evolution has shaped us to be <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with this statement. For example, think of how a parent reacts when a child is threatened in any way. Thoughts of peace and benevolance go out the window really quickly. We are quite willing to kill in order to protect ourselves and our children.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Phenix-D: I’m not sure about the time scale, you sound about right though. If you read his post again it seems clear (to me) that he is referring to the Hominid line only. Drawing the [starting] line for life is just too difficult to mention in any thread of this type.

It sounds as if I have offended you, I apologize and if this is the direction the thread is turning than we should all let it just slip into the oblivion at the bottom.

As far as what I was referring to I could not agree more with your point that:
“It sounds more like attacking than an explanation would frankly. "You are wrong" doesn't get us very far.”
That is why I was careful to point out:
“If you would like me to e-mail you with what’s wrong in that statement than let me know? Long story short is that it would take about a page to show you.”
Since it would take so much I skipped it and left the option open. Thank you for pointing that out though, if you missed it than someone else may also.

[mlmbd]

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

Oh HI, Kamog!

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

[Kamog]

Oh, hello, mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif !
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[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... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[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. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will not disagree with your posting! What a break, for you!

I would like to expand on your template, If I might?
First, (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, [QUOTE] we are "the meanest, most aggressive, most blood thirsty race on the planet." <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[ 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 ]

[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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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". <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It continues, with no break into; We are the meanest, most aggressive, most bloodthirsty race on the planet". <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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

[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. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"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 <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

If all science relied on that style of thinking we would be living in thatched huts plowing with crude iron tools.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 ]

[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." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[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

[President_Elect_Shang]

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.

[President_Elect_Shang]

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 <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought you had to special ops to do that?

[Suicide Junkie]

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

[Fyron]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought you had to special ops to do that?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Edit the first post, and change the subject line.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought you had to special ops to do that?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Edit the first post, and change the subject line.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, wow learn something new everyday. Thank you.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Hows that, better?

[mlmbd]

President Elect Shang, Not stimuli but schema, the perception of correlated things. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Definition from Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary;<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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

[Instar]

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)

[Fyron]

Instar, what are the core questions?

[Baron Munchausen]

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.

[Erax]

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.

[Gryphin]

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.

[DirectorTsaarx]

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 .

[Wardad]

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.

[Kamog]

Is a Pair-a-dime the same as two-bits?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 ]

[mlmbd]

Kamog, spoiled sport! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif