I think you're on really shaky ground here. First of all, it's not possible to demonstrate the action of the Unconscious. Its existence can be inferred, but never proven.The Unconscious concepts I am familiar with are those of Jung and Freud, respectively - and neither ever proposed a role for the Unconscious in physiological development.
It's interesting to speculate on how "deep" the Unconscious might go, but to say, "This is how the brain works," as if you have the report in front of you, is disingenuous at best. If you do have any evidence to support this, I'd be interested to see it.
I don't buy it. Yes, the human body develops in response to the environment on a fundamental level; and yes, social learning at a young age has a huge impact on our relationships later in life (attachment theory), but I would argue that all of these developments occur within the framework of our basic genetic blueprints. IE, we're born with certain potentials, and the environment, and probably chance, too, help to determine what gets filled in and emphasized.
Do you think some children learn to be colorblind? If so, why is Red-Green colorblindness the most common? Red and green are primary colors - I highly doubt any children grow through a critical stage of development without seeing plenty of both of them. Not to mention colorblindness is more common among boys. Are boys at a higher risk of not being exposed to the right colors at the right time?
1. blame the terrorists
2. fight the terrorists in afghanistan
3. then fight the terrorists in iraq
4. possibly fight the terrorists in iran...?
5. ...yeah. pretty much anywhere there are terrorists we can start a war (says bush) except maybe saudi arabia and pakistan, because they play ball.
A war on terror has no end and no borders.
I suppose I could cite religious traditions, but I'm not religious.
Why shouldn't a physical thing be sacred? If you really believe that life has no meaning but what we make, and there is nothing after we die, than this physical world is all we have. Wouldn't that make the physical world that much more precious and full of meaning?
You must not have any children? Aren't all children sacred to their parents?
It's not that the clapper is motivated by social concerns - most likely he is, since clapping is a group behavior - it's that he has evaluated for himself, as an individual, whatever it was and reached the conclusion, independently, that it is clap-worthy, ie, he approves.
If he was alone, he would not clap to communicate his approval.
My argument is
A: people benefitted and
B: then they lied about what happened
I think they lied about what happened because the official story omits many details or does not plausibly explain them.
---------------------------------------
When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%
Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
If you've studied Carl Jung, then you should know his type theory of personality: which presupposes that individuals are born with an innate, preferred mode of interacting with the world. In fact, this mode also determines how an individual would "screen" information, and hence shape what it is that he learned from his environment (for example, introversion vs extraversion).
Furthermore, (according to Jung) an individual can "learn" to ignore his natural preference and become a "turntype." Needless to say, this is unhealthy for the individual, leading to anxiety, complexes, and generalized human misery.
p.s. For those interested, Jung's typology has been popularized by the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). It's the most complete, deep, and useful (imho) personality theory ever conceived.
I just want to defend my beliefs of innate predisposition from accusations of "dehumanizing the species."
I have not meant to suggest that human beings are incapable of change, growth and transformation. Of course not. But there is a certain inherent intelligence and potential; an optimal direction for self-actualization. IMHO.
But that doesn't mean I am reducing a human being to a pile of genetic material. On the contrary, I think our genes (as we understand them) are merely the physical manifestation of our presence, and I believe human beings are more than just physical matter (Wow, that sounds flakey).
Then again, how did genetic material get such a bad reputation? If human beings were the only species with DNA, it would be sacred.
From your wiki link:
"The inherent intelligence of swarms has inspired many social and political philosophers, in that the collective movements of an aggregate often derive from independent decision making on the part of a single individual. A common example is how the unaided decision of a person in a crowd to start clapping will often encourage others to follow suit, culminating in widespread applause. Such knowledge, an individualist advocate might argue, should encourage individual decision making (however mundane) as an effective tool in bringing about widespread social change.:
Why did that one person start clapping? If it was for a good reason, then the whole swarm is smart. If it was for a dumb reason, then the whole swarm is really, really pathetic. Your link presents a stronger argument in favor of individual judgment, methinks.
It's a logical principle. Ever read Flatland? It's about a 2-dimensional world with little, 2-dimensional people running around. Well, who has a better understanding of Flatland - the natives, or us 3-dimensional beings?
The people who live in Flatland aren't even aware of their limitations of perception - they can't even conceive of them. Just as we can't conceive of higher order dimensions.
Anyway, that's my analogy. Flatland is our consciousness which actually exists within a third dimension that we aren't even aware of. The third dimension isn't our brain, although it would exist according to the limitations of that brain. I can't say what the third thing is; that's the point.
Know what I mean?
Speaking to the issue of physical sexual desire, would anyone seriously contend that heterosexual desire stems from social learning? Absurd.
Given the stigma that is still associated with homosexuality, why would anyone "choose" to desire someone of the same sex? It'd be a hell of a lot easier to do what the majority is doing. You can't choose your desire.
But it's more than just physical desire that makes people fall in love. There is a mental/spiritual component, too. And I think that is also innate, and anyone who tries to label that as an environmental interaction is 'shrinking' what it means to be a human being.
There is an unfortunate tendency among heterosexuals to magnify the sexual dimension of homosexual relationships. Homosexuals seek companionship, security and fulfillment just like everyone else.
Totally agree. Circumcision reduces sensitivity for a negligible hygiene boost. Plenty of uncircumcised guys have no problem keeping their willies clean. If the kid grows up, and he wants one, Godspeed. Not the parent's decision to make.
Not to mention, there have been cases where circumcisions have gone wrong with disastrous results. It's freakishly rare I would imagine, but why even risk something like that?
"Thomas Jefferson first suggested that we not have a standing army, and wrote a series of letters in 1787, as the Constitution was being debated, urging James Madison and others to write it into the Constitution.
The idea was, instead of a standing army, for every able-bodied man in the nation to be a member of a local militia, under local control, with a gun in his house. If the nation was invaded, word would come down to the local level and every man in the country would be the army.
Switzerland has such an army, and many have suggested it's one reason why Hitler never tried to invade this neighbor."
P.S. Please don't throw around "national security" as if that handy little term needs no explanation. If you wish to include "national security" in your argument, please say what exactly you mean by it. Security of US citizens from foreign invasion? Security of US business interests in the middle east? Thanks!
note: For the purposes of this debate, the Air Force and Navy are excluded.
"Suicide rates among the elderly are highest for those who are divorced or widowed. In 1998, among males aged 75 years and older the rate for divorced men was 3.4 times and widowed men was 2.6 times that for married men. In the same age group, the suicide rate for divorced women was 2.8 times and widowed women was 1.9 times the rate among married women."
I don't think I can endorse communism, but I agree that capitalism in it's present form does create poverty. It's not a coincidence that some of the wealthiest industrial areas on earth are surrounded by slums. They thrive on cheap, available labor.
I don't know much about the micro-loans, but I've heard of them and they seem entirely positive.
I can't get past
"A revision of the Nazi heirarchy...in 1944 increased productivity by some 30%, which really gives an indication of the waste within nazi ranks. Of course, by that time, it was already too late."
I wasn't referring to something as abstract as organizational waste. I was referring to the ruthless efficiency involved in murdering human beings and disposing of their corpses as cheaply and quickly as possible. Generally, that's what people mean when they use "Nazis" and "efficiency" in the same sentence.
"Terrorist regime." That's a nice phrase to throw around carelessly.
Did you forget that the CIA carried out a military coup against the Shah of Iran in the 1950s? Terrorism is a matter of perspective. The reason fundamentalist groups in the Middle East hate America is because they are tired of us occupying their holy land and destabilizing governments.
Do some independent research before you endorse what you hear in the mainstream media. Google is your friend.
The question was regarding the capacity for judgment of groups vs individuals - which I read as the ability to make smart, humane choices. Not to simply perform work of some kind.
That reminds me of another debate elsewhere, in which offshore outsourcing was praised for it's salutary effect on an abstract entity known as, "the economy." My question, then as now, is: what about the human cost? The Nazis were infamous for their "efficiency."
Yes, and there's been a lot of fascinating and hopeful studies on this in social psychology.
from wiki
Preventing groupthink
According to Irving Janis, decision making groups are not necessarily doomed to groupthink. He also claims that there are several ways to prevent it. Janis devised seven ways of preventing groupthink (209-15):
1. Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.
2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.
3. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.
4. All effective alternatives should be examined.
5. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.
6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.
7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.
By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis.[3] During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, in order to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures.
The lack of molten steel in the report indicates one thing: The working hypothesis is insufficient.
9/11 was a historic and tragic event. It has radically altered the political discourse and shaped America's foreign and domestic policy for the last 6-7 years. Don't you think our government should be interested in a full and complete investigation? We spent more on the Challenger disaster($3million vs $50million). Considering the investigation doesn't appear to be complete, it seems reasonable to invest another $47million or so, what do you say?
I agree with NIST's first proposition. I even agree with some of the claims in their 2nd proposition, but it goes too far.
See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel.
Even if you believe NIST's claim that a massively compromised support structure on a handful of floors could cause a global collapse, how could it have created the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero?
That's why molten steel is important. It proves that the 9/11 commission's hypothesis is not sufficient to explain all the data. If you can explain the molten steel with the 9/11 commission's facts, I'm ready to hear the alternative viewpoint. So far, the best your side can come up with is, Oh, molten steel is irrelevant.
