Social Psychology

  • 34 Replies
  • 11023 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« on: 03/10/2007 07:03:06 »
If we assume society can behave like an individual.
Then
can we ask society the same psychological questions we ask to individual?

Let us susbstitute S for Society and Q for questions.
We ask in terms of possibilities.
Q.Can you get depressed?
S.Yes I can get.Once there was a wave of depression.
Q.Do you pretend?
S.Yes I pretend.I live with false pride and false sense of equality.
Q.Do you Lie?
S.Often.
Q.Do you keep relationships with other S?
S.Yes
Q.Who created the Universe?
S.Science says Big Bang Created the Universe. Relgion says God. Some say no one. I dont know.I am confused.
Q.What is your purpose?
S.I dont know.Science says no purpose.Individuals make their own purpose.
I just tried to live the way I have been living.
Q.But why have you been living like that?
A.I dont know.No one knows.... You can say the search for answers are going on within me.
Q.Can you recall your most memorable moment?
S.Yes. I once expreienced an euphoria when I landed on Moon and when Wall of germany was demolished.
Q.Do you die?
S.Yes. Old ones die and new ones form
Q.Do you take birth?
S.Yes I think so.. but can be disputed.

Therefore we see that many characteristics of society is similar to individual.
And we can expect the society to be suffering from diseases of psychological nature.
But in such cases who is the doctor?
Those without purpose or those with purpose.




*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #1 on: 03/10/2007 07:40:35 »
What is your point and where is the new theory?

As society consists many individuals it is hardly surprising that individual traits are displayed on a society-wide scale. Plus, of course, you will get different answers depending on which society you ask the questions of.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2007 07:42:57 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #2 on: 03/10/2007 07:55:17 »
There is no new theory.But this is the safest place to dump.
:-)))
Society behaves like an individual.All questions were directed to Society at large.(similarly we can ask question to Humans at large)


Anyways did you go through the Algorithm for TSP?
Any disagreements?
It explains formation of societies as well.

It is not a childs play to simulate "evolutionary" life even for relatively small time.
The best computers will fail to simulate life.



*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Social Psychology
« Reply #3 on: 03/10/2007 10:18:59 »
I appreciate and concur with some of the ideas that you are trying to express here (and elsewhere)although would question your choice of a sole driving force the maximisation of pleasure.

My own opinions are that most of the driving forces are similar to those of evolution and that "fashion" has a large role in the development Richard Dawkins in his idea of Memes is quite useful but I disagree with his fundamentalist hatred of all aspects of religion.  The evolved sensation of pleasure has something to do with this but the reality is far more complex.

My current main area of study is looking back to more fundamental physics and considering the possibility that even the laws of physics may have "evolved" naturally in a way that enables complexity in a universe.  That is although the laws of physics are fixed early in the evolution of the universe around the times of symmetry breaking.  this process is not entirely random because the alternative effects in the physical laws tend to affect the way things settle out.  This is a bit like the way the shape of a river bed affects the flow of the water even when the river is in flood and the rocks are covered or the shape of the seabed at great depth can affect the shape of the waves on the surface of the sea.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Social Psychology
« Reply #4 on: 03/10/2007 10:33:36 »
DKV:

*Ahem*

Search Google: "artificial life", "evolution simulation", "biomedical simulation" etc.


I've said so numerous times and I will tell you again: TSP is plain and simply >>>wrong<<<. And what "Algorithm" could you possibly produce for TSP? Don't algorithms require actual data input, of which you have provided none? The only information you have provided is invalid. "Any disagreements?" Are you kidding me? Please, have you read any of the disagreeing replies to your posts?

If you would like TSP to be considered seriously, please learn Darwinian evolutionary theory properly first, and if that doesn't convince you that TSP is wrong, collect some real evidence and formulate an actual theory about TSP. Otherwise, stop wasting your own and our time.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2007 10:42:53 by _Stefan_ »
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #5 on: 03/10/2007 13:55:58 »
Quote
I appreciate and concur with some of the ideas that you are trying to express here (and elsewhere)although would question your choice of a sole driving force the maximisation of pleasure.
Thanks.
Quote
My own opinions are that most of the driving forces are similar to those of evolution and that "fashion" has a large role in the development Richard Dawkins in his idea of Memes is quite useful but I disagree with his fundamentalist hatred of all aspects of religion.  The evolved sensation of pleasure has something to do with this but the reality is far more complex.
Let me remind you religion has always been existing since time immorial. And I do not wish to comment on a theory which finds religion contradictory to life and evolution.
TSP says there is one and only one purpose.And that is towards sustainable pleasure.
Choose any other purpose any you create unnatural environment meaning driven by external force.
Quote
My current main area of study is looking back to more fundamental physics and considering the possibility that even the laws of physics may have "evolved" naturally in a way that enables complexity in a universe.  That is although the laws of physics are fixed early in the evolution of the universe around the times of symmetry breaking.  this process is not entirely random because the alternative effects in the physical laws tend to affect the way things settle out.  This is a bit like the way the shape of a river bed affects the flow of the water even when the river is in flood and the rocks are covered or the shape of the seabed at great depth can affect the shape of the waves on the surface of the sea.
Interesting keep it up. But remember you must understand certain basic physical principles before you do that.Evolution of laws can be expressed under
TSP. Simialar thoughts tend to live together. Otherwise there will be No observe to live "your" physical world.
Best of luck!
« Last Edit: 03/10/2007 13:57:32 by dkv »

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #6 on: 03/10/2007 15:52:31 »
Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe.

What the study illustrates is that in the its behavior, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it.
- An example of social psychology.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #7 on: 03/10/2007 21:08:31 »
Many successful businessmen have psychopathic or sociopathic characteristics so it's hardly surprising that their corporations also display those characteristics in their business ethos. The stronger the chairman/CEO, and the more control he has over the corporation, the more likely it is that psycho- or sociopathic characteristics will be evident.

Psychopathic tendencies can be a definite plus in the canis canem edit world of big business. To succeed, it is likely that a businessman will have utilised many of those traits; for instance, having no conscience about bankrupting competitors, laying off staff, or behaving in a less-than-honest way.

Psychopaths are, in general, highly intelligent egoists who believe they are better than anyone else. They are also usually very focused & have a great knowledge of their chosen subjects. In addition, they can be very persuasive and amiable company. What better characteristics for an upcoming businessman!

Applying traits & methods to their business ethos that have succeeded for them personally would be perfectly natural. It would be surprising if those traits were not utilised.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Social Psychology
« Reply #8 on: 03/10/2007 22:07:35 »
DKV I am a professional physicist and that that comment to my quote is entirely obscure and does not seem to be relvant
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #9 on: 04/10/2007 09:22:07 »
What is hardly surprising is that this social formation is the underlying laws of nature?
A group behaves like an individual.
I wonder whether certain groups and societies are suffering from psychological problems.
Anyways the TSP algorithm is based on the same principles. (similar things come together and a new Self ID is assigned ... it has great predictive powers.. it allows highere level of abstractions and I am proud of the theory)


*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Social Psychology
« Reply #10 on: 04/10/2007 12:21:55 »
Please show us exactly how TSP is actually valid. Until now you haven't given a single shred of evidence to support your hypothesis.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #11 on: 04/10/2007 12:54:20 »
If people were just after pleasure they would sit at home all day masturbating.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #12 on: 04/10/2007 12:57:29 »

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=10486.0

Using the logic above everything can be explained.
Every event leads towards sustainable pleasure.
I find it everywhere therefore I want to know where do you find the contradiction?
Give me examples.
When male Octopus mates with another male Octopus I know what is driving the behaviour .. you dont know.
When somebody commits suicide I know what is driving the behaviour you dont know.
Its predictive powers lies in the fact that it predicts that Human - Animal Hybrid will not survive without human intervention.
It predicts that there is nothing called as bad or good life objects but only cooperative or competetive or similar.
Read Chicken Pox.
Homosexuality
Birds behaviour
Fish behaviour
Foreplay before Sex
Love
War
Racism
Everything can be explained.
I just wonder what is the problem in accpeting my theory.

Pleasure is expensive . we are not prepetual machines so do not expect perpetual masturbation.
And the evolution from Hairy Chimpanzees to Non-Hairy one can not be explained .



*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #13 on: 04/10/2007 13:36:29 »
Quote
And the evolution from Hairy Chimpanzees to Non-Hairy one can not be explained .

Can you give an authoritative citation for that assertion? I very much doubt that you can for the reason that it did not happen.

For a start "hairy chimpanzees" have not evolved into anything, they are still around.  It is a common misconception among those who do not understand evolution that man evolved from monkeys or apes. Evolution theory does not say that. The "Non-hairy one", as you call it, and chimpanzees share a common ancestor species.

Quote
When male Octopus mates with another male Octopus I know what is driving the behaviour .. you dont know.
When somebody commits suicide I know what is driving the behaviour you dont know.

Your first assertion is correct as I am a psychologist not a marine biologist. As such, your second assertion is very likely inaccurate.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #14 on: 04/10/2007 13:47:20 »
yes thats what I meant chimpanzee evolution theory.
The ancestor must have  been hairy .
What kind of genetic game or strategy would lead to favourate non-sticky hair skin gene.
I dont know what i m talking about.The hair went extinct for what?



*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #15 on: 04/10/2007 13:52:45 »
yes thats what I meant chimpanzee evolution theory.
The ancestor must have  been hairy .
What kind of genetic game or strategy would lead to favourate non-sticky hair skin gene.
I dont know what i m talking about.The hair went extinct for what?


We probably started to lose body hair when we started wearing clothes. Hair was becoming superfluous to retaining body heat.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Social Psychology
« Reply #16 on: 04/10/2007 14:05:44 »
The problem is that your logic is false, your thinking is warped, and all the phenomena you describe can and have been properly explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory and other scientifically accepted theories.
I can't understand why you refuse to accept this simple idea.

Further, it can be said that pleasure (or a precursor to pleasure, or another characteristic of which pleasure is a side-effect)is a favorable characteristic which may enter under evolutionary pressures. However, there is no evidence that there exists a drive "towards sustainable pleasure", nor that organisms evolve only to achieve this state. Organisms only evolve in directions which result in the survival and reproduction of genes. To claim otherwise without a valid basis is logically fallacious.




By the way, I stumbled upon this blog entry that nicely explains your behavior.  http://www.getbeyondbelief.com/6201.html
Quote
"Stuffers" hold a worldview and try to stuff every experience and sensation into that view.  They interpret all input arriving at their eyes, fingertips, ears, noses and mouths in the light of their finite, literal worldview.  Stuffers start with a conclusion and are forced to either mangle or discard evidence that contradicts the pre-conceived conclusion.


Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #17 on: 04/10/2007 14:06:50 »
Try a simple experiment.
Make a chimpanzee wear clothes and observe its generation after generation ....
I bet you will find the same chimpanzee with hairs.
Wearing clothes is equivalent to creating extra dependency on the environment. More energy is required to retain such additional artifacts.
Such expensive excercise for what?
Dont we know that Jungles provide shelter for hairy and non hairy...
Such an  adaptation was meaningless.
One can think of adaptation to natural environment but here we find a case in which a species adapts to superifical uncertain environment in which there were both risks and gains and for such a long time that natural hair gene goes extinct. Absurd.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #18 on: 04/10/2007 14:12:29 »
Sucide can not be explained by Darwinian theory.
The latest theory is being circulated by Richard Dawking who admits that his thoery far from complete.

without random Natural selection it comes crashing down.
And even after using billions of years it fails to guarantee anything..
I gurantee that evoltution leads to greater pleasure.
(or TSP)
And the jokes you have sent hardly relates to the stuff I am talking about ...


*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #19 on: 04/10/2007 14:32:19 »
Sucide can not be explained by Darwinian theory.

Of course it can't. Darwinism is to do with evolution & biology, not psychology. You may just as well argue that psychoanalysis cannot explain the photoelectric effect.

Quote
The latest theory is being circulated by Richard Dawking who admits that his thoery far from complete.

without random Natural selection it comes crashing down.
And even after using billions of years it fails to guarantee anything..

I didn't realise Dawkin's theory had been around for billions of years  [:D]

The Selfish Gene does not attempt to usurp or undermine evolution. It is to do with human behaviour. If natural selection did not exist, Dawkin's theory would still merit consideration.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #20 on: 04/10/2007 15:00:06 »
:-))))) but it takes billions of years to predict nothing.
No .. it will not becuase it logically incorrect.
Dawkings doesnt refer to selction at the level of group or species. It doenst make sense. It manages to "explain" evolution using natural selection towards favourable genes.
For example Hair Genes !!
But it is big grand illusion which explains nothing.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #21 on: 04/10/2007 16:05:16 »
What on Earth are you talking about? Have you actually read Richard Dawkin's book? If you have then it doesn't seem as if you understood it.

It is Darwinism that stresses survival of the fittest, of the most favourable qualities. Dawkin's theory stresses survival of those closest to you, of those in whom you have a vested interest.

One area in which both of these theories struggle is altruism towards strangers. Altruism cannot be a survival trait, so therefore does not fit into Darwinism. The altruistic trait should by now have been bred out of the population. Nor does altruism towards strangers benefit one's own genes, so Dawkinism cannot readily accommodate it either.

I suppose you're going to tell me that TSP can explain it. Oh yawn... go on then.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 299
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #22 on: 04/10/2007 16:31:46 »
Quote
It is Darwinism that stresses survival of the fittest, of the most favourable qualities. Dawkin's theory stresses survival of those closest to you, of those in whom you have a vested interest.
There si nothing favourable as such with respect to individual oragnism... statistically yes those close to me should survive because I have interests in them emotionally.
They are people whom I know and knew all life long.
More than genetic interests there are emotional interests....
Because of emotional interests the genetic interests appear ...
But if they do not provide or had provided the emotional support then I might ditch them ...
I may risk genetic qualities in favour of greater happiness. 
Example Buddhism ... which doesnt believe in opposite sex.
It happens so often I wonder who gave this absurd theory.
TSP rules.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Social Psychology
« Reply #23 on: 04/10/2007 18:02:22 »
Buddhism doesn't believe in the opposite sex? What absolute twaddle!

May I suggest you go away, actually learn something about the topics you are citing or trying to refute, then if you still think you are right, return & try to argue your point logically, intelligently & consistently.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Social Psychology
« Reply #24 on: 04/10/2007 18:27:58 »
One area in which both of these theories struggle is altruism towards strangers. Altruism cannot be a survival trait, so therefore does not fit into Darwinism. The altruistic trait should by now have been bred out of the population. Nor does altruism towards strangers benefit one's own genes, so Dawkinism cannot readily accommodate it either.

It depends on how you classify altruism.

Certainly, acting for mutual long term benefit at the price of personal short term benefit is fairly easy to understand (it is why corporations will form cartels to control the market even though on a simplistic level they can gain more short term benefit by trying to destroy their competition rather than co-operate with them).

Ofcourse, the other issue is that nature creates simple rules that work most of the time, but that simple approximation can sometimes have locally perverse outcomes, but the cost to the overall system of such perverse outcomes remains less than the cost of complicating the system to avoid those outcomes.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2007 18:30:12 by another_someone »

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline kdlynn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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_ »
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline dkv

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.


Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.