Psychology NOT religion

[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 ]

[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?