The Free Dictionary
Acronyms & Abbr.
Español / Spanish
Deutsch / German
Français / French
Italiano / Italian
Português / Portuguese
Nederlands / Dutch
Norsk / Norwegian
Ελληνική / Greek
Русский / Russian
The user name or password entered is incorrect. Please try again.
The Free Dictionary Language Forums
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:50:15 AM
Number of Posts:
[0.43% of all post / 1.06 posts per day]
Last 10 Posts
Public Example of Misogyny that Affects All Women
Monday, January 27, 2020 4:11:13 AM
And what I understand is that the idea that the invention of paternity testing could (maybe in time) help in getting rid of the need of men to subjugate women is void. If the main idea is to make women reliant on men so that men can force a choice of gene selection on women is still relevant and will not go away... This is sad...
That would indeed be a sad state of affairs Sufall and I don't know at this point in our cultural coevolution whether it is likely to change. For this or any of the other chains that bind humanity to mindless coevolutionary forces to be broken, a significant portion of the population must first acknowledge that those chains exist. In order to do that not only would that portion of the population have to fully acknowledge that evolution occurred, but that modern human behavior at both the individual and cultural level are the result of evolutionary forces. Unfortunately, that information is not widespread, nor part of any regular primary education system's curriculum that I am aware of.
There is a very readable primer available on the subject of behavioral genetics and I highly recommend it,
"The Selfish Gene"
by Richard Dawkins. First published in the late 70s it is a masterful work detailing the implications of evolutionary theory on the development of modern human behavior. It is a fascinating read, and although sobering, and humbling, it is also empowering. The second edition is far more expensive than the first, however, for an introduction and actually thorough treatment of the issue the first addition serves well enough, in my opinion.
There still is some hope, of course, because as you noted "nothing in individual human behavior let alone cultural behavior is this simple" - cooperation is always better and more efficient than suppression, and cooperation is a key feature in human evolution, right?
The advent of cooperation is a major development in the evolutionary history of not only humans but many species and it is an incredibly powerful adaptation but I think to say it is always better is an overreach but that is very strictly speaking from a rigorous perspective. In the context of this discussion yes, definitely cooperation is not only better but in my opinion critical to the adaptive development of the species.
There is still hope? Well, honestly I can only hope so. As a species we seem to be foundering in adolescence and reaching maturity does not seem to be as sure of a thing as I once thought. The only hope I see is in a significant portion of the population coming to an understanding of the true nature of homo sapiens and use that understanding to overcome behavioral strategies that are no longer adaptive; whereas, it appears that there are forces at work which are informed by this understanding and are using it for the manipulation of the population for the benefit of a minority.
ETA It turns out a later edition is available even cheaper, it had been a while since I'd checked.
Here is is.
Supernatural and Divine
Sunday, January 26, 2020 10:50:35 AM
Oh I see, thank you. Well I can say from my days as an evangelical Christian that in general humanism is regarded as heretical by evangelicals.
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
American Humanist Association
I was going to say you don't have to go far to see why at this site as this quote is right at the top of the page but, it turns out you don't even have to go that far. Their Logo...
From an evangelical's perspective and belief set, there is no good without their God.
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.”
The doctrine is commonly referred to as total depravity and the concept is antithetical to humanism.
Capitalism Draws Fire, Despite Strong Global Economy
Sunday, January 26, 2020 8:09:12 AM
High Hope! I haven't read this article yet but I think one of the best reviews of the strengths of capitalism, as well as the gross dangers of unrestrained capitalism, was the History channel series
"The Men Who Built America"
It's available on Amazon Prime video at that link there is a seven day free trial and is only 8 episodes.
Supernatural and Divine
Sunday, January 26, 2020 4:04:19 AM
I thought about getting into this thread but realized that I was probably going to immediately lead it off-topic as I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. Could you clarify please?
Public Example of Misogyny that Affects All Women
Sunday, January 26, 2020 3:47:01 AM
Correct me if this is not what you want to discuss:
Subjugation of women has been somehow caused by women determining (at least for most of the time) whose genes get passed on? And this does not make evolutionary sense because women's choices ended up being unfavourable for them - that is, ended up in their subjugation?
Hello Sufall, what I meant was that because women have this influence, men came to subjugate them in order to be able to force a choice on them. In the beginning it was not far removed from the alpha male individual being practically the sole male replicator in a population.
Assuming women do get to choose whose genes get passed on, the survival of the resulting offspring in the wild (i.e. in those times when we were cave-dwellers as well as today when the competition for well-paid secure jobs is no less fierce) requires not just the women's but also the men's coordinated efforts - i.e. the men should help raising their offspring if they want to make sure of their survival.
This principle is behind the origin of primary mates and the nuclear family to a degree, and even far earlier in the rise of primate social order, also "to a degree". My tentative supposition is that the subjugation of women was partially caused by the fact that women choose the next generation and if men want to be able to be sure their genes are passed on they are in an advantageous position if women are reliant on them for their survival. I want to emphasize again, this is stripping away all other contributing factors to the rise of this behavior, nothing in individual human behavior let alone cultural behavior is this simple. My conjecture is that behind all those other factors this lies at the foundation of the behavior.
Public Example of Misogyny that Affects All Women
Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:17:42 AM
Both of the topics in this thread are interesting, and thanks to Hope for moving the humanism/religion topic to the P&R subforum.
The thing I've always found interesting about the subjugation of women in most modern cultures, and by that I mean just about from the beginning of what we would call cultures above the hunter/gatherer level, is how it doesn't make evolutionary sense in one key aspect.
Stripped of all other attributes, (please pardon the crassness but it serves to make the point) men and women are basically egg layers and sperm squirters. From an evolutionary perspective, it is women who have the real power they are the ones who determine whose genes get passed on. I am fully aware that it has not always been that way and in some cultures still largely is not today, but this is what I wonder. Has the subjugation of women been because of this very fact?
I'm purposely leaving out a lot of the nuance and subtleties of the phenomenon to get to what may be the first principles of the problem.
Hapless Sick persons.
Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:08:54 AM
If there were any significant history of that strategy actually working I'm sure it would be employed more often.
Saturday, January 11, 2020 3:25:07 AM
I came across this and thought you might like it, too. I wish I could have a conversation with the author. I think that would be very interesting and enjoyable. So many ideas occurred to me as I was reading it.
Mindfulness is Loaded With Troubling Assumptions
Sorry it has taken a while for me to reply, I did read the article... DAMN, and sanctified fecal matter!! Now I know why I thought I'd read the article before! I thought this was just posted concurrently with Romany's comment, and just saw it was actually 6 months ago. Well defecation, sorry FounDit I definitely appreciate the heads up and do have opinions on what the author said as well as the practice in general.
First I agree overall with the author regarding the issue but specifically this statement;
In claiming to offer a multipurpose, multi-user remedy for all occasions, mindfulness oversimplifies the difficult business of understanding oneself. It fits oh-so-neatly into a culture of techno-fixes, easy answers and self-hacks, where we can all just tinker with the contents of our heads to solve problems, instead of probing why we’re so dissatisfied with our lives in the first place.
My own opinion about mindfulness is that it could be a useful tool in a persons attempt to bring themselves up from being basically a reactionary automaton guided by a lifetime of maladaptive strategies and biased thinking. That state of the individual is a result of misinformation on the nature of modern homo-sapien and the machinations of a cultural environment that has been formed strictly by coevolutionary processes that are no longer adaptive in the modern world.
If I were able to start a movement akin to the type that mindfulness represents, I don't know what I'd call it, consciousnessness is just too much of a phonetic nightmare. But it would be based on an empirical understanding of the nature of mind, and the implications of the evolutionary paradigm for every aspect of life as a Homo sapiens, from the operation of the individual mind to the dynamics of cultures and civilization as a whole.
My fear is that we have passed the cusp point at which this could have become known by the majority and that an elite minority have learned the mechanics of social manipulation far too well for there to be any hope for the enlightenment of the species and that we are being led by the nose to a dystopian future.
All That Winning
Sunday, January 5, 2020 6:07:27 AM
High Hope, I only occasionally drop into this forum as I find the level of divisiveness distressing and feel like the vitriol that goes on here has done much to drag down the forum in general; however, this quote you referenced could not be truer and it baffles me that people are not taking it into consideration.
The biases of human neural wiring "convince us we know things we really don't. We are too quick to make up our minds and and too slow to change them."
The wish is that the new year would bring more critical thinking so we are beware of claims and information designed to be incendiary and emotional, as emotion usually wins.
"Alien Interview" Book by Lawrence R. Spencer
Saturday, January 4, 2020 7:45:01 AM
The notion of there being an afterlife is probably as old as the species itself and most likely in concurrent with the first burial of the dead behaviors early in the homo line. Tens upon tens of thousands of years later we have very elaborate notions of the what, where, and why of an imagined afterlife; however, if you want to come to an informed conclusion regarding the human behavior of believing in an afterlife of any kind, you must start at the beginning.
Julian Jaynes in his book
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
provides an overview of the earliest known examples of the behavior. His conclusions are of course slanted to support his own hypothesis on the origin of consciousness; however, apart from that, it is a fairly quick introduction to the matter. I do not think Jaynes' hypothesis regarding consciousness is correct but there is much of merit in his book particularly the first third. I think you would find it fascinating and that link goes to a free pdf file of the entire book.
At the end of the very first paragraph of his book, Jaynes poses three questions regarding consciousness:
What is it?
Where did it come from?
Rigorously and as objectively as possible asking and answering these three questions is, in my opinion, critical to having actual, trustable knowledge of any phenomenon. So that is where I would suggest you start regarding the belief in an afterlife, setting aside all of the stories humans have come up with based on an assumption that was not questioned for eons.
People who believe in an afterlife, as I once did, assume that forsaking that notion will be an everlasting disappointment but, I have not found that to be the case. Actually once I came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable basis for believing it I found I was not that disappointed after all. If anything knowing that I will someday no longer exist gave me a much greater appreciation for the life I have.
Main Forum RSS :
Forum Terms and Guidelines
Copyright © 2008-2020
. All rights reserved.