Natural Selection - Trim the herd!

Fysh

naughty_girl wrote:

6) People do not want to admit just how important attraction is, opting for claims that its personalit etc. Well for the initial pull to someone, it has to be sexual, how can you procreate with someone you don't find attractive? Personaility will come into it, but biologoy has a bigger say. Its not being shallow, or mean-its survival of the fittest, and that means best(strongest) genes. The signals that indicate this are picked up and interpreted as gut feelings, sexual desire etc. Its important to listen to them. They were our first, and I believe best way to ensure personal safety.

So, what you're telling me is that the bastardised phrase "survival of the fittest" should mean "survival of the fittest in the context of hunter-gatherer humanoids thousands of years ago". Nonsense. All the idea means is "suitability to the current environment", and humans are adept at changing their environment to make it suit them.

I can't speak for everyone, but I have no qualms about admitting my attraction or otherwise for someone. However, your notion that basic instinctual reactions are better equipment for achieving our needs and desires than, say, the technology and science we have developed over thousands of years, then again I say, fool. Do you avoid going to the doctor, instead eating whatever herbs your instincts guide you to, when you fall ill? Do you drive a car by instinct when you need to get somewhere and your feet won't adequately cover the distance? Or use a computer by instinct alone?

naughty_girl wrote:

7) We need to listen to our gut feelings again, they are rarely wrong and exist to protect us. Nowadays, with everyone being so PC, and money-hungry, and well stupid (book-smarts don't count, its survival instinct I'm talking about), they are being ignored, and so there is a bad partner merry-go-round. Maybe if you listened to what your stomach is telling you, your body -does some one creep you out? Repulse you? Attract you? Excite you? Scare you? Your gut feeling won't lead you to far astray. Your social conscience probably will lead you astray. Be safe, be smart, listen to the messgaes your body is giving you.

Really? Nonsense. "Survival instinct" doesn't apply in the way you mean to a world where, by and large, we don't have regular contact with predators. Gut instincts can tell you a lot of things, but frankly when confronted with the choice between using my brain and relying on fuzzy instinct, I'll go for brain. You may do what you like - you do realise that instinct, among other things, causes you to close your eyes when someone goes to punch you, for example? (Not exactly an ideal solution to the problem, you'll agree). Instincts are a result of how our brains are wired. Relying on them rather than our ability to think rationally (or at least, most people's ability to think rationally - I'm starting to question yours) is misguided, to say the least.

naughty_girl wrote:

8) I do not believe that because mother nature dictates something, that it should neccessarily follow though as planned, but I respect it. I'm not saying people who can't naturaly concieve should be forbidden to have kids (perhaps adoption should be pushed more thoguh, to keep the population down). I am saying that attacking the OP is ridicolous, he is stating the things he feels in his guts, and it took a lot of balls to openly admit the things he feels and thinks. Don't castigate him, because he is right, maybe not PC or likely to get a support crowd, but technicaly all his points are valid and correct.

Oh, shut up. Please. Take your anti-PC rant, get it out of the way, and look at what he's saying. He is basically saying "I've found myself in the big wide world, and it's mega scary. Because of my initial inability to cope, I think that we should all revert to an earlier more 'natural' state, because I'm assuming that I would be able to cope adequately with that. Wow, everyone hates me for being un-PC". What most people have responded with is "wow, you don't seem to understand most of the scientific ideas you've tried to mention, and you're a bit of an idiot. Deal with it". You are now defending someone using broken science and a conviction that Nature is sentient. I'm not sure who's the bigger idiot.

naughty_girl wrote:

If you can show me biological (not technological, thats interfering with mother nature) evidence to the contary, by all means do

And if this post cause confusion for you, maybe you should consider getting some help when involving yourself into a debate that will delve into grey areas like physcology

Again you mis-spell psychology. Again you demonstrate your misguided conviction that "nature" is sentient and has intentions, rather than being a fuzzy catch-all term for the variety of processes which occur in organic life. Again you try, and fail, to be condescending to someone whose post history shows them to be intellectually above you by some margin.

Technology, you will find, is made by man, with components found in nature. There is no violation of any physical or natural laws, beyond your own twisted notion of what "natural" means - again, I point out to you, you're writing this on an internet forum with a computer. For this to be possible, it must be "natural". Stop loading the word with meanings it doesn't possess.

Shabadu

Standing ovation for Fysh, please. That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Thank you for having the patience, intellegence and consideration to respond to that drivel properly.

BuffyBot

Maybe not, I'm not an expert

Yup, I think you've proved that beyond doubt!

Shabadu

You could say she's an ex-pert...







*tumbleweed*

Eoghan-psych

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

Standing ovation for Fysh, please. That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Thank you for having the patience, intellegence and consideration to respond to that drivel properly.

Absolutely - there was an *awful* lot in there that needed replying to. It's always great to see someone not just take the time to save everyone else the hassle of defending rational thought, but to do it well - much applause is deserved.

pretty-in-pink

So you're saying because you don’t see some thing- it’s not real- if there’s no physical proof, it can’t count? Are you an atheist or do you believe in a higher power?

It's my belief that "gut instinct" is there for a reason, and there have been studies trying to research it. However as it’s so hard to prove any real change in the body, and the mind it is often dismissed. People don’t feel comfortable trusting themselves, they follow what stats tell them and what other people are doing/think is normal. There is a field of thought that if we were more open to listening to that gut feeling, we would find that it is right.

Have you ever said `I just knew I shouldn't have done that, everything went wrong from the start?’ I bet you answer yes with more than one `flash back' to remind you of that dreaded moment when you made the wrong decision which had a domino effect of disaster...and what's worse, you knew it right then and there, but yet you did it anyway. My theory is your logic and instinct were at war with each other and you were caught in the middle, and guess what? Logic won.

I would like to introduce to you `GI', otherwise known as your `gut instinct' and probably your best friend and ally in life. When you are faced with making decisions which you know are critical in the big picture, you subconsciously send out an SOS and that's when `GI' jumps in, comes to the rescue, or at least tries to, but all too often we ignore the warning signs.

The reasons for our gut feeling are rarely based on prejudice- they can be changed with knowledge about the thing causing your gut feeling, but it’s rarely a fascist/sexist etc opinion. Your gut feeling tries to help you; it sends off warning signals or tries to lead you down a certain path.

Unfortunately, people feel more comfortable with solutions to their economic ailments that are written on a `prescription pad’...they feel cheated if there is no complexity involved. And there lies the problem; we have lost the ability to trust our own judgement.

Source 1

We have changed to survive in the world we have created; I’m not saying we should go back to living as the cave men did. We wouldn't survive now anyway, we lost that particular set of skills.

As for the attractive/ugly thing. Are you aware of the hip/waist ratio theory? It states that while the current desirable size etc has varied over the years, one thing has remained constant- that the hip/waist ratio is about 0.7. It's said that this is the ratio that indicates what makes a woman most fertile. And our primary reason being the procreate- given such things like spiritual development are considered to be to "airy-fairy" to constitute a reason to live- it makes sense that the more fertile someone is the more attractive they are. Surely there is a similar drive behind what makes men attractive? As for ugly- it’s the combination of features, body and other "dodgy" areas. Not many people are actually ugly. I wouldn't describe anyone I know as being ugly- would you?

Size is not overly relevant (with the exception of the extremes) to being attractive.
It’s not always what we have that dictates how we react though,

It's easy to imagine that wilderness survival would involve equipment, training, and experience. It turns out that, at the moment of truth, those might be good things to have but they aren't decisive. Those of us who go into the wilderness or seek our thrills in contact with the forces of nature soon learn, in fact, that experience, training, and modern equipment can betray you. The maddening thing for someone with a Western scientific turn of mind is that it's not what's in your pack that separates the quick from the dead. It's not even what's in your mind. Corny as it sounds, it's what's in your heart

Source 2

However I wouldn't expect someone who clearly needs logical steps and proof of existence to believe in something or decide about something to understand the inner complexities of the human mind- not brain, mind. Or the workings of the soul.

I don't think that someone should be ostracised for their sexuality or lifestyle, unless they are deliberately causing harm to another living thing. And I am aware people can contribute to life regardless of being gay, straight, old, young etc.

With regards to procreation I meant if someone cannot become aroused by by a member of the opposite sex, then they cannot engage in sexual intercourse with them, and so cannot have children. If they can become aroused by them, then they can have children.

MSO.....on what grounds are you claiming that I am stupid? And at what point did I say scientists, IT guys etc were stupid?

They aren't- I know they are intelligent. I wanted to separate things we have developed to get past genetic hiccups from what happens naturally. The fact you supposed I was calling other people ignorant or stupid says a lot about you.

I also said that Mother Nature saying something doesn't mean we have to follow it.
And women have a nurturing instinct, its fact, we have the children, we need the maternity leave, we have the urge to look after people. All this combined would mean we are more capable of looking after the family. Women are also more sociable. I remember reading somewhere that we need to express more throughout the day (possibly in one of those "why men don't listen and why women can't read maps2 style books, maybe that exact one) then men. So we are more sociable.

I don't have the time to further go into this now, but I'll be back

Kingsize

cant believe this thread is still going!!! :eek:
hide your glasses folks its pol pot!
anyone going outside for a smoke??

Shabadu

Yeah. D'ya have a light?

Naughty_Girl wrote:

I don't have the time to further go into this now, but I'll be back

Promise? Or threat? We all got your point, reiterating it slightly differently is not going to make anyone suddenly change their minds.

Hint:

Naughty_Girl wrote:

With regards to procreation I meant if someone cannot become aroused by by a member of the opposite sex, then they cannot engage in sexual intercourse with them, and so cannot have children. If they can become aroused by them, then they can have children.

Stop being so stupid, please? I know a MTF transexual who was married with three daughters before deciding to become a woman. He was never physically attracted to his wife. He imagined that he was the woman he was having sex with, being penetrated by a man. Imagination can go a long way.

Naughty_Girl wrote:

However I wouldn't expect someone who clearly needs logical steps and proof of existence to believe in something or decide about something to understand the inner complexities of the human mind- not brain, mind. Or the workings of the soul.

Stop trying to condescend, it really comes off badly for you. That is one of the least coherent sentences I have ever read. Also, you educating us about the inner complexities of the mind? As a case study, maybe.

Please try and counter other people's points with concise arguments, rather than just adding more ramblings to your original posts.

You, know, you could have a very valid point but the way you are putting it across isn't working very well.

Gut instinct is an important aspect to our survival, but it must be tempered by cognitive thought.

Rapists and murderers are people who follow their gut instincts blindly.

Stop trying to put men and women into seperate boxes, life and sexuality are much more fluid than you think.

Eoghan-psych

naughty_girl wrote:

So you're saying because you don’t see some thing- it’s not real- if there’s no physical proof, it can’t count? Are you an atheist or do you believe in a higher power?

Do you often believe things without evidence? I hope not, because that's a very silly approach - especially for someone who claims to talk coherently about scientific issues.

naughty_girl wrote:

It's my belief that "gut instinct" is there for a reason, and there have been studies trying to research it. However as it’s so hard to prove any real change in the body, and the mind it is often dismissed.

Eh, what? Ever hear of GSR? EEG? MRI? MEG? EKG? All of these are used to show *very* small changes in physiology resulting from psychological processes [or, to use your spelling, phychological]. They measure changes that are so small that humans aren't actually aware of them.

naughty_girl wrote:

The reasons for our gut feeling are rarely based on prejudice- they can be changed with knowledge about the thing causing your gut feeling, but it’s rarely a fascist/sexist etc opinion. Your gut feeling tries to help you; it sends off warning signals or tries to lead you down a certain path.

Prejudice extends *far* beyond sexism and fascism. Your "gut feeling" does not try to do anything - it is merely the primary unconscious response of your nervous system and the associated cognitive processing.

naughty_girl wrote:

We have changed to survive in the world we have created; I’m not saying we should go back to living as the cave men did. We wouldn't survive now anyway, we lost that particular set of skills.

naughty_girl wrote:

However I wouldn't expect someone who clearly needs logical steps and proof of existence to believe in something or decide about something to understand the inner complexities of the human mind- not brain, mind. Or the workings of the soul.

Eh, newsflash dear - the mind is no more than the activity of the brain. Millions of hours of research in phychology [sic] have shown this, using clear logical steps.

naughty_girl wrote:

With regards to procreation I meant if someone cannot become aroused by by a member of the opposite sex, then they cannot engage in sexual intercourse with them, and so cannot have children. If they can become aroused by them, then they can have children.

Yes they can. Or are you going to argue that pedophiles never get married? They have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children - yet they manage to procreate with adult females with little difficulty. Human sexual arousal is *far* more flexible than you are trying to claim.

naughty_girl wrote:

I also said that Mother Nature saying something doesn't mean we have to follow it.
And women have a nurturing instinct, its fact, we have the children, we need the maternity leave, we have the urge to look after people. All this combined would mean we are more capable of looking after the family. Women are also more sociable. I remember reading somewhere that we need to express more throughout the day (possibly in one of those "why men don't listen and why women can't read maps2 style books, maybe that exact one) then men. So we are more sociable.
I don't have the time to further go into this now, but I'll be back

That is not, primarily at least, down to biology. Millennia of male-centric socialisation has led to the formation of "girl" and "boy" categories of behaviour, and children are raised to fit into one or other of those categories, by and large. There is a degree of flexibility, and this is changing over time.

I urge you to spend a lot more time reading the *substance* of the scientific areas you have referred to in this thread - not just the headlines.

Shabadu

Headline: 'Naughty_Girl *SPANKED* by Eoghan_psych and Fysh'



Innuendo abounds.

Fysh

naughty_girl wrote:

So you're saying because you don’t see some thing- it’s not real- if there’s no physical proof, it can’t count? Are you an atheist or do you believe in a higher power?

As it happens, I'm an atheist. Although I don't see why you're bringing it into this, since it's only tangentially relevant (I presume this is your way of defending your attribution of sentience to natural processes). But that's not an argument I'm willing to get into since it smacks of you hiding behind religious beliefs to avoid admitting that you're wrong.

naughty_girl wrote:

It's my belief that "gut instinct" is there for a reason, and there have been studies trying to research it. However as it’s so hard to prove any real change in the body, and the mind it is often dismissed. People don’t feel comfortable trusting themselves, they follow what stats tell them and what other people are doing/think is normal. There is a field of thought that if we were more open to listening to that gut feeling, we would find that it is right.

The reasons for our gut feeling are rarely based on prejudice- they can be changed with knowledge about the thing causing your gut feeling, but it’s rarely a fascist/sexist etc opinion. Your gut feeling tries to help you; it sends off warning signals or tries to lead you down a certain path.

It's my conviction that people who go on gut instinct (such as George W - clearly a prime exponent for the "gut instinct" way of living, and a fantastic example of why I think it's a bad idea) are unreliable, since they are happy to make decisions without analysing them rationally. If you think it works for you, that's great - but don't be surprised if people, me included, find it extremely difficult to trust your judgement. You seem to be ascribing sentience properties to "gut feeling", which is daft - it's not like a separate entity telling you something, it's a mish-mash of initial responses from your own mind.

naughty_girl wrote:

We have changed to survive in the world we have created; I’m not saying we should go back to living as the cave men did. We wouldn't survive now anyway, we lost that particular set of skills.

So then why did you basically assert that cavemen values should still apply to us? Or are you just trying to gloss over that part of your previous posts and hope nobody notices?

naughty_girl wrote:

As for the attractive/ugly thing. Are you aware of the hip/waist ratio theory? It states that while the current desirable size etc has varied over the years, one thing has remained constant- that the hip/waist ratio is about 0.7. It's said that this is the ratio that indicates what makes a woman most fertile. And our primary reason being the procreate- given such things like spiritual development are considered to be to "airy-fairy" to constitute a reason to live- it makes sense that the more fertile someone is the more attractive they are. Surely there is a similar drive behind what makes men attractive? As for ugly- it’s the combination of features, body and other "dodgy" areas. Not many people are actually ugly. I wouldn't describe anyone I know as being ugly- would you?

Speak for yourself. I and many others have far more reasons to live and desires than the blind urge to produce children. You may consider other reasons "airy fairy", but I would say it's an intensely personal thing. Each person has their own desires and motivations. To try and claim that reproducing is the sole reason for us is to try and ignore our mental development and abilities, at which point your argument becomes meaningless since it ignores the facts.

As for the ugly - *sigh*. I am well aware of the idea that attractiveness depends on certain ratios (another being the triangular relationship between the eyes and nose). Nonetheless, given the diversity of faces upon the planet, it's a pretty safe bet that no matter what you look like, someone somewhere will find you attractive. Which rather suggests your earlier point ("ugly is always ugly even if attractive has changed") was completely wrong. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the above, since it makes little or no sense in the context of my comments and your previous statement - it rather looks like you've just vomited anything you know onto the page in an attempt to post something approaching a well-thought-out reply. (It didn't work, by the way.)

naughty_girl wrote:

However I wouldn't expect someone who clearly needs logical steps and proof of existence to believe in something or decide about something to understand the inner complexities of the human mind- not brain, mind. Or the workings of the soul.

Nice try, but no cigar. Just because I like to have reasons before I make up my mind on something doesn't mean you can dismiss my opinion - in fact, it actually works the other way round.

I have absolutely no problem trying to understand the complexities of the human mind - although by your comments you seem to be trying to suggest that the brain has no influence on the mind, at which point neurologists are going to laugh at you and I'm going to join in. As for "the soul", well...prove to me why it's needed as a separate entity to the mind, then give me some proof it exists, and then we'll talk. So far all your arguments consist of hiding behind vaguely religious/spiritual concepts, which in layman's terms tends to mean you lose.

naughty_girl wrote:

I don't think that someone should be ostracised for their sexuality or lifestyle, unless they are deliberately causing harm to another living thing. And I am aware people can contribute to life regardless of being gay, straight, old, young etc.

With regards to procreation I meant if someone cannot become aroused by by a member of the opposite sex, then they cannot engage in sexual intercourse with them, and so cannot have children. If they can become aroused by them, then they can have children.

Again I say to thee, FOOL! Cloning technology and artificial insemination have been around for years now. It is perfectly possible for people to have children without needing to conceive them the traditional way.

And just in case you genuinely did miss my previous point rather than just ignoring it as you appear to have done - I was pointing out that your previous post and general tone appeared to be supporting the notion that the only worthwhile contribution one can make to our species is to drop a sprog. A notion which, applied to a social species, is basically ridiculous. See my previous post for particularly glaring examples of this, and recognize that there are many many more where they came from.

naughty_girl wrote:

MSO.....on what grounds are you claiming that I am stupid? And at what point did I say scientists, IT guys etc were stupid?
They aren't- I know they are intelligent. I wanted to separate things we have developed to get past genetic hiccups from what happens naturally. The fact you supposed I was calling other people ignorant or stupid says a lot about you.

Not quite. Your previous message presupposed (wrongly, I might add) that simu's inability to comprehend your ramblingly inane comments stemmed from him/her being stupid. Given that simu mods philosophy (a forum I frequent) and that I therefore have seen quite a lot of his/her posts, I can safely say that judging by the post records I've seen from both of you, you're clearly the more intellectually lacking. Your last post was made all the more humourous by your apparent conviction that this is not the case.

And, since you seem to have misunderstood completely, the comment about science/IT guys was not claiming that you said they were "stupid" - it was pointing out that your assumption that Science/IT "ubergeeks" (to use your term) inextricably link science and technology is just plain wrong. It is wrong. Talk to any biologist, scientist, or technologist - you will see that it is wrong. Scientific developments can be anything from a more advanced mathematical formulation of gravitational theory to refining chemical distribution models within the body. There is no requirement for technology to be involved at all - a hell of a lot of science can be done with just pencil, paper and brain. Your inability to grasp this throws yet more weight behind the notion that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Oh, and you should be congratulated on a pretty dire attempt to take one of my own comments and turn it into an insult. I've met 13-year-olds who can make more scathing remarks - if you like, maybe I can arrange for one of them to teach you a thing or nine...

naughty_girl wrote:

I also said that Mother Nature saying something doesn't mean we have to follow it.
And women have a nurturing instinct, its fact, we have the children, we need the maternity leave, we have the urge to look after people. All this combined would mean we are more capable of looking after the family. Women are also more sociable. I remember reading somewhere that we need to express more throughout the day (possibly in one of those "why men don't listen and why women can't read maps2 style books, maybe that exact one) then men. So we are more sociable.

Correction. In case you're not aware, there is such a thing as paternity leave these days, and the "urge to look after people" (I presume you mean children by that, since if you're applying it to everyone then it's a stupid and inapplicable generalisation) stems from hormonal changes that occur during pregnancy.

And frankly, backing yourself up with an "I think I remember reading somewhere" comment that then refers to some Self-Help For Idiots book isn't going to get you anywhere. I said reputable biological journals, thanks, not new age self help.

pretty-in-pink

Fine, most of the posters here may work with things that can be proven, but there are also many things that can't be proven- like God- there is no physical proof of heaven and hell, does it exist because of faith- or are those who believe delusional?

I am also became aware- while trawling the net- I am pretty much alone in my beliefs. That doesn't bother me, because they are my beliefs, nobody else needs to have them. I do still stand by them, but I don't have research to back it up (though the chance to study and either proof myself right or wrong would be nice)- and so I will have to leave my arguments as opinion.

I will grant the point that gut feeling needs to be backed up with cognitive thought, and thank-you for accepting gut feeling as actually existing.

As for making me a case study, could be a good idea, I'd like to know why I think what I do, where it came from etc. You want to try work me out, fire ahead- I'd be interested to see what you come up with it.

I also know my spelling is not great (understatement really), and as for the way I type- it comes out on the keyboard/paper etc the way it comes into my head.

The reason for the spelling lies for the most part with my eyes- they tend to mix letters around or add them in, this is a relatively recent development and would like to point out it is not to do with my intelligence- now if you stated my laziness as a cause I might have accepted it.

simu

Fysh wrote:

Your previous message presupposed (wrongly, I might add) that simu's inability to comprehend your ramblingly inane comments stemmed from him/her being stupid.

You can't remember whether I'm male or female? :eek:

Naughty girl:

Your posts lead me to conclude that your basic and incomplete knowledge of subjects such as biology, sociology and anthropology have led you to form conlusions you would realise were erroneous were you to deepen your knowledge of these same subjects. These points have already been addressed by others so I don't need to explain them here.

If you have trouble spelling, use a spell-checker. You could also explain your thoughts fully rather than relying on ambiguous punctuation or idiosyncratic definitions and find out what abstract nouns are and when adjectives can and cannot be used in the English language.

The Corinthian

naughty_girl wrote:

I do still stand by them, but I don't have research to back it up (though the chance to study and either proof myself right or wrong would be nice)- and so I will have to leave my arguments as opinion.

These discussions are actually a chance to study and either proof yourself right or wrong. That you have opinions and gut feelings has not been denied here or in other threads, however you would have to consider that believing something simply based upon a gut feeling is a bit inadvisable. After all, if you know no better, would your gut feeling tell you that the sun orbited the Earth or visa versa?

pretty-in-pink

Don't you think that further exploration into the human mind, and human instincts could be beneficial? I think that not enough is known about how and why we work? Not just our bodies, but what causes our reactions, and feelings?

Let all other development go ahead, but I think the human element is being more or less ignored- and I really don't think that’s such a bad thing.

Also it's an ambition of mine to work for a few years, and then raise a family. Which may be akin to social suicide, or seem shocking, but it is something I want, and so I see the good points in it. Who knows maybe what the world needs is some sort of constant guidance for children- be it a mother or father figure (This slight change of mind came after it was pointed out to me in simple terms with case studies, there are some really awful women in regards to housework, and there are some brilliant men- so I was mistaken- it wasn't instinct that pushed women to stay home and men to work, but breeding)
Having been slated numerous times over this wish, I was immediately overly-defensive and I apologise.


(see spell check )

mycroft

naughty_girl wrote:

Don't you think that further exploration into the human mind, and human instincts could be beneficial? I think that not enough is known about how and why we work? Not just our bodies, but what causes our reactions, and feelings?

Let all other development go ahead, but I think the human element is being more or less ignored- and I really don't think that’s such a bad thing.

Stripping away all the double negatives in the 2nd part of your post. The last 150 years has seen the first attempts to really quanitfy and understand human behaviour. We're only now beginning to grasp human behaviour on any attempt of a scientific basis, what we've been struggling to mainly through philosophy and art.

Right now, there are more people studying human behaviour now, either through psychology, neural psychology, psychotherapy, behavioural science, then put together over the rest of our existance. We've got machines that can read and see inside brains.

You can't remember whether I'm male or female?

To be fair, it's not like he can look up your skirt or summit

Eoghan-psych

naughty_girl wrote:

Don't you think that further exploration into the human mind, and human instincts could be beneficial? I think that not enough is known about how and why we work? Not just our bodies, but what causes our reactions, and feelings?

Yes. It's called psychology, and it is one of the most popular subjects in education.

naughty_girl wrote:

Let all other development go ahead, but I think the human element is being more or less ignored- and I really don't think that’s such a bad thing.

See above.

Boston

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Yes. It's called psychology, and it is one of the most popular subjects in education.

No it's not. It's a very highly prized educational oppertunity, for many reasons, but by the shear fact that there are only a handfull of courses with very a limited numbers of people getting degrees render the notion that it is popular as wrong. Or maybe you judge popularity not on the number of people doing a course but on the relative number of people they refuse entry to.

mycroft

Boston wrote:

No it's not. It's a very highly prized educational oppertunity, for many reasons, but by the shear fact that there are only a handfull of courses with very a limited numbers of people getting degrees render the notion that it is popular as wrong. Or maybe you judge popularity not on the number of people doing a course but on the relative number of people they refuse entry to.

What are you stupid? Look no offense but psychology can be studied as part of basis arts degree in most arts colleges here.

I tried googling just how many courses there are but the first hit offered me just over five million pages. Instead this

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/articles/majors/popular.asp

Top 10 Most Popular Majors

No. 2. Psychology.

Boston

Your mothers a whore, No offence like;

http://www2.cao.ie/index.php?page=courses these are the only places in Ireland you can get a recognised Qualification. You know nothing, about it, it's works completely differently here then in america.

simu

mycroft wrote:

What are you stupid? Look no offense but psychology can be studied as part of basis arts degree in most arts colleges here.

Most psychology courses in Ireland require above 500 points. In most unis, it's only in first year that you're allowed to study it as part of a general Arts degree.

Shabadu

In fairness,whether or not it's accesible to most Irish people or not, it is still one of the most researched subjects there is. The amount of literature and papers, case studies etc.

There may be an enormous amount left to research, but a hell of a lot of people are studying the human psyche presently.

Boston

One could argue that you need specific research into the "irish condition" as apposed to the "Human condition"; To be of help

Fysh

Boston wrote:

One could argue that you need specific research into the "irish condition" as apposed to the "Human condition"; To be of help

Why? You seem to be the only person restricting the scope of what's discussed in this thread to the Irish.

simu

"This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever."
(Sigmund Freud on the Irish).


:-)

pork99

Sharza- wrote:

We said it was time to "trim the herd" get rid of the kind that nature would have gotten rid of if it wasn't for our technological advances and political protection.

God, you guys are gonna shoot me for this :P

We said we'd get rid of the following:
Unhealthy people - Because their children would inherit their bad genes and probably not survive anyway.
Weak males - Because again of the children they would create.
Ugly females(oh my god) - Because naturaly most males are attracted to pretty females and some scientists are of the belief that 'looks' are based upon good-luck in a sense in the gene pool, disease free..
Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all.

Natural selection works because it is natural. What you are suggesting is something else, eugenics, where humans not nature makes the selection decision. It based on cultural not natural criteria.

The Corinthian

I say take off all the warning labels and let the problem solve itself.

Eoghan-psych

Boston wrote:

No it's not. It's a very highly prized educational oppertunity, for many reasons, but by the shear fact that there are only a handfull of courses with very a limited numbers of people getting degrees render the notion that it is popular as wrong. Or maybe you judge popularity not on the number of people doing a course but on the relative number of people they refuse entry to.

This is true in Ireland where admission is based on academic ability - Americans almost always have access to psychology as part of their weird system. Ireland produces about 150 graduates a year from the 'real' courses [NUIM, UCD, Trinity, NUIG and so forth].

Eoghan-psych

mycroft wrote:

What are you stupid? Look no offense but psychology can be studied as part of basis arts degree in most arts colleges here.

I tried googling just how many courses there are but the first hit offered me just over five million pages. Instead this

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/articles/majors/popular.asp

Top 10 Most Popular Majors

No. 2. Psychology.

Not strictly true. In general, psychology depts in Ireland offer the subject as a first year option, entirely seperate from the denominated degree. About the top 20% of people who take this 'back door' are offered a place on the denominated degree from second year on.

Eoghan-psych

simu wrote:

Most psychology courses in Ireland require above 500 points. In most unis, it's only in first year that you're allowed to study it as part of a general Arts degree.

Those are direct entry denominated courses [i.e. the resulting degree is a B.A. Psychology or B.Sc. Psychology, not a generic Arts or Science degree]. Most of the four or so real courses are now rapidly approaching 550 points.

The first year students from the generic Arts programmes who get offered a place in first psychology [as a rule of thumb there are abot 30 in the denominated group and then about 60-70 places for arts students, and they are then whittled down to about 10-15 for the rest of the degree course based on performance in 1st year] do generally have an *average* points score less than that required for direct entry. They still tend to fit into the 400-500 bracket though, well about the ~300 or so cut-off for general Arts. Those that make it through to second year match those in the denominated course - i.e. had there been more places on the denominated course they would have taken them anyway.