Re: [evol-psych] [Opinions Wanted] BDSM: An evolutionary response to rape?
On 4/1/2012 5:08 AM, sue palam wrote:
only those who want to be animal behave like animal the rest of the human race behaves with the appropriate manner according what is right and wrong moral code and law
I am glad that you became a list member and I hope you remain one, but I find myself wondering what someone who expresses those attitudes would expect to gain from participation. Do you expect to learn about EP, or do you only want to 'police' (as above) those who express views you find immoral? Have you even considered whether or not you might learn from what others post or do you feel you already know what is right and wrong and intend to judge our evolutionary adaptations (and conjectures about same) according to that standard? What do you think is the relationship between "what is right and wrong moral code and law" and EP? Do you think the current western (shall we say PC) moral and legal code conforms to our species' evolutionary adaptation? Do you think adaptations from our 'animalistic' evolutionary history have to be suppressed in order for society to attain a "moral" standard, and what would inform such a standard: marxism, Christianity, some other religion or ... ?
- ----- Original Message -----From: AnnaSent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:41 PMSubject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: [evil-psych] [Opinions Wanted] BDSM: An evolutionary response to rape?Sure, religions suck, but what has it to do with faith?AnnaRKS:
The exclusive association of faith with religion is a great pity. Faith is the great enabler. It can switch on the placebo effect which could well save your life. An interesting story about a second world war doctor in a Japanese prisoner camp. A young man was clearly dying. In an effort to save his life he gave the young man pills, which were actually chicken poo. The young man rallied and survived, not because of what was given to him but because of the change in his belief i.e. from believing that he would die to believing that he would live.There are numerous such stories, many verified scientifically and found under heading 'Placebo Effect'.It may be argued that all such placebo effects and faith driven ecstasies are just cases of people fooling themselves. But this implies that we are normally entirely objective and rational, like Dr.Spock of Star Trek fame. But this simply isn't true and proving that we are constantly misguided has been entertaining and embarrassing psychologists for many years. Indeed, for more than a century now. And it is embarrassing because despite their knowledge of how easily one can be fooled, they are constantly caught out by colleagues when they volunteer for a study and find that they didn't correctly pick what the researchers were actually studying (and so fell into the trap :)If we suffer a degree of delusion all the time then it makes sense to take hold of that delusion and guide it. One method that we unwittingly use can be framed in a conscious way. Think of happy events in your own past for a few minutes. That's all it takes to lift your own mood a bit. We do this unwittingly by reminiscing with friends ~ our mood changes to match what is being discussed, even if it changes only a little bit.One can further guide these loose emotional canons using techniques such as meditation. Psychiatrists and Clinical Psychologists may use Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to alter mood and so on.All of these things are fooling with our faith, the innate form that is active all the time and identifies real from not real. We need such a mechanism because the highly processed sensory information may be very wrong, for instance seeing a person approaching with an axe only to realise that it is a bush moving in the wind. A simple sensorial tool needed to correct for misinterpretation of sensorial information can work the other way as well, to declare something that clearly isn't real as alive, like a statue, when in its generalised (human) form.None of this will have any intellectual impact on the person who denies faith or attributes it only to the religious. We tend to think of only the misapplication of faith as being 'faith' without realising that everything we think of as real is also real because of the same faith mechanism.Thus I can conclude that if fear of fear itself is the worst kind of fear then faith in faith itself is the highest form of faith. It does not require an object of faith, it needs only to be acknowledged for itself as a normal, innate and useful cognitive tool without which we would have no conception of the difference between fantasy, reality, dreams and perceptual error.Kind Regards,Robert Karl Stonjek