The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Social Psychology  (Read 10840 times)

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #25 on: 04/10/2007 19:44:02 »
Altruism I already explained.
Buddism as originally preached had no place for women.
========================================
Anyways those interested can know another fact:
There are times when a family memember kills its own family. It happens in the animal kingdom and human society. Search the internet and you will find many example. One specific example involves Nepal King's heir killing his entire family and himself for a girl.
I know of bitches who kill and eat their own litter.
I know of snakes who eat their own eggs.
The only reason the children manage to survive is due to their role in future for the society or parents to move towards greater sustainablility of pleasure.
In some countries both developed and 3rd world there are couples who breed only for money and then they leave their children like stray dogs.(social security number provides some benefits to married couples who have kids)
Why ? Because the culture doesnt support long term family based happiness.
=======================================
In this complicated game I clearly lead in explaining life on the whole.
Those who disagree will regret the decision to call the life a replication game which is full of contradictions and considers individuals as gene carriers.
=====================================
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #26 on: 04/10/2007 20:10:30 »
Oh wake up! It's got nothing to do with their culture not being geared up for long-term family happiness. They can't afford to keep the kids. Full stop.

I could probably come up with a theory equally as silly as yours and support it with random statements that have very little, if any, basis in reality.
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #27 on: 04/10/2007 20:27:32 »
Who is stopping you from giving theories?
But I am glad you are atleast not with those who believe Religion is Virus.
Now its time to show support for TSP.
Vote Now.
Those proudly support the idea that Religion as Virus are actually Devils in someone's notebook.
We need to fight this evil. Do you have the guts to stand for TSP?
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #28 on: 04/10/2007 23:34:02 »
Religion isn't a virus because virii have a basis in reality.
 

Offline kdlynn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2851
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #29 on: 05/10/2007 01:15:18 »
dkv... every time you are asked for PROOF the only information you can provide supporting your theory is information that you, yourself, have written. therefor, that is not proof. that is you restating your opinion.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Social Psychology
« Reply #30 on: 05/10/2007 01:40:45 »
Behaving altruistically towards strangers has been described as a side-effect. During the evolution of the higher apes (including us, chimps) we lived in small family groups, similar to the way baboons do. In this case it was highly likely that we would come into contact with the same individuals at least several times in our lifetime. It would be advantageous to treat those individuals nicely, because there was a chance you would meet them again and you wouldn't want them to harm you the next time you met. Also, these individuals most likely shared many of your genes.

However, when we became part of much larger communities, which also contained unrelated individuals, our brains treated this environment as if it was the small family group. It could be said that even though you may never see a certain individual again, it would be a much safer move to act altruistically towards them, because this way you don't risk personal harm. You also benefit from this behavior if the other individual reciprocates, where it may want to watch your back as you watch their back, etc.

Also, as members of the same species, we still share a large percentage of genes with each other. This is further evolutionary incentive to treat strangers nicely.

Then of course you have scenarios where members of one group harm members of another group, or of in-group disputes. In both these cases, the defending the group's territory or property or members from competition and attack, which is another method of survival, and of harming members of your own group, e.g. by fighting over food or other things, or punishing a misbehaving youngster, the perceived risks involved are not such as to endanger one's own survival. For example, in both cases, certain individuals ally together to act against other individuals. The attacking individuals have persuaded others of their group to support them.
If an individual acts against another, alone, the group may shun it unless they agree with the reason and method for the non-altruistic act.

When a species of organisms evolves a brain which allows them to have true, consciously selfish motives, you get individuals which can act against the will of their genes.




DKV, get over yourself. Your notions are misconceived, and in light of your recent posts you really do seem crazy. You have not shown how TSP works, you have not provided evidence, your entire TSP campaign is based on your own misunderstandings of Darwinian evolution and selfish gene theory, and of many other scientific theories and other explanations. Do yourself a favor, stop posting rubbish, and re-read the science behind the claims you are trying to dispute and support until you understand it.

In science you do not persuade people with nonsensical rubbish, you persuade people with verifiable facts and valid explanations.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2007 01:42:26 by _Stefan_ »
 

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #31 on: 05/10/2007 04:39:25 »
Quote
Behaving altruistically towards strangers has been described as a side-effect. During the evolution of the higher apes (including us, chimps) we lived in small family groups, similar to the way baboons do. In this case it was highly likely that we would come into contact with the same individuals at least several times in our lifetime. It would be advantageous to treat those individuals nicely, because there was a chance you would meet them again and you wouldn't want them to harm you the next time you met. Also, these individuals most likely shared many of your genes.
YOU ARE INVOLVING STRATEGY AT THE GENE LEVEL ... THERE IS NO INTENTION AT THE GENE LEVEL AND NOTHING GETS SIMULATED BY ANIMALS.THE REPLICATION DOESNT PREDICT EMOTIONS OR CONSCIOUSNESS IN ANIMALS>...
REPLICATION THEORY STANDS FOR CONTRADICTION.LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND IMAGINATION BY THE FOLLOWERS LEAD TO
APPRENT EXPLANATIONS.ITS A CHAOTIC THEORY WHICH OFFERS NOTHING WORTH THE EFFORT.
===================================================

I dont even want to quote the rubbish which you and your supporters are propagating in the name of meme.
Infact the replication theory is a Virus and which exploits the religion to further its own cause of propaganda.
ONE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE IS THAT THE GENETIC DISTRIBUTION IS ASYMETRIC IN MALES AND FEMALES: AND THIS WAS USED TO EXPLAIN THE BEHAVIOUR IN NUMBER OF CASES. But the fact is there is no proof to anything.
Its an illusion.
I BET YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING:
Given a objective there are two choices with or without genes. Whats the big deal?
And I have already said that similar conditions must prevail for greter happiness. Which means the offsprings will carry the traits of parents.
I explain everthing.
You are looking for contradiction between replication and TSP but the fact is TSP explains why offsprings look similar to parents.. why random mutations do not take place... why random rearrangement of genes didnt  take place in the scheme of nothing?

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #32 on: 05/10/2007 07:45:02 »
Behaving altruistically towards strangers has been described as a side-effect. During the evolution of the higher apes (including us, chimps) we lived in small family groups, similar to the way baboons do. In this case it was highly likely that we would come into contact with the same individuals at least several times in our lifetime. It would be advantageous to treat those individuals nicely, because there was a chance you would meet them again and you wouldn't want them to harm you the next time you met. Also, these individuals most likely shared many of your genes.

That seems to be confusing altruism with friendliness.

Quote
However, when we became part of much larger communities, which also contained unrelated individuals, our brains treated this environment as if it was the small family group. It could be said that even though you may never see a certain individual again, it would be a much safer move to act altruistically towards them, because this way you don't risk personal harm. You also benefit from this behavior if the other individual reciprocates, where it may want to watch your back as you watch their back, etc.

You mention reciprocation and that is what you have described here, not altruism.

Altruism is helping another (or others) with no percievable benefit to, or reward for, oneself. If a deed is done for the purpose of some future reciprocation then it cannot be altruistic.

In fact, it can be argued that altruism doesn't actually exist as the self-satisfaction one gets from helping others is in itself a reward.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Social Psychology
« Reply #33 on: 05/10/2007 09:04:27 »
You're right. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Re-reading my post it appears I got sidetracked into explaining morality.


Yes, from the gene's point of view, altruism doesn't exist, since the sacrificing organism's DNA is nevertheless conserved by other members of the family/group/species. You would not see altruism if the genes were highly at risk as a result of the altruism.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #34 on: 05/10/2007 10:27:24 »
Altruism has not been studied that much. There has been plenty of research into helping behaviour since Latané and Darley studied the Kitty Genovese case in 1970, but altruism itself has received scant attention.

I would be interested to see if there is any difference in incidences of altruism between those with offspring and those without. However, as any altruistic act would be hard to identify due to a self-satisfaction motive, it would not be an easy piece of research to conduct.


 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Social Psychology
« Reply #34 on: 05/10/2007 10:27:24 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length