A better understanding of xenophobia. educational thread.

[torchbearer]

Ok, i'm going to start this thread off with the latest research into why people fear others who physically look different from them. the root cause of xenophobia.
hopefuly this will allow people to better understand the term and what it means when i use it to describe certain behaviors present in people's very post.

let's start here:
How does Williams syndrome prevent racism?
http://scienceblogs.com/neuronculture/2010/04/how_does_williams_syndrome_pre.php

(this article is published in many places, you can find them all on google news.)

Ed Yong, Mo Costandi, Scientific American, and others have covered nicely a new paper finding that people with WIlliams syndrome (a condition I've been interested in since writing a long feature about it for the Times Magazine a few years back) show little or no racial bias. But I wanted to add one thought about the finding.

Most of the write-ups have emphasized, rightly, that people with Williams tend to show little or no social fear -- a lack that could explain a lack of racial bias. If you don't fear people, you don't feel out-groups. Yet as I noted in my article, people with Williams also show a distinct lack of social savvy, and I think this could contribute too:

If a person suffers the small genetic accident that creates Williams syndrome, he'll live with not only some fairly conventional cognitive deficits, like trouble with space and numbers, but also a strange set of traits that researchers call the Williams social phenotype or, less formally, the "Williams personality": a love of company and conversation combined, often awkwardly, with a poor understanding of social dynamics and a lack of social inhibition. The combination creates some memorable encounters. Oliver Sacks, the neurologist and author, once watched as a particularly charming 8-year-old Williams girl, who was visiting Sacks at his hotel, took a garrulous detour into a wedding ceremony. "I'm afraid she disrupted the flow of this wedding," Sacks told me. "She also mistook the bride's mother for the bride. That was an awkward moment. But it very much pleased the mother."
So how might this lead to less or no racial bias? Most reactions to the paper have emphasized the lack of social fear that people with Williams. Doubtless that contributes. Yet I wonder if their lack of social savvy, particularly their tendency to miss the meaning behind hints or other veiled statements, whether friendly or hostile. Of you need to end a conversation with someone who happens to have Williams, the old reliable "Well, I should let you go" probably won't work, because your friend probably won't perceive this cue's real signal ("I'd like to be let go now."). Likewise they'll miss most veiled threats. "Williamses," as I put it in the article, "do not generally sniff out the sorts of hidden meanings and intentions that lie behind so much human behavior." [I used that construction -- "Williamses" -- because IO was urged to do so by Williamses and their families, who find it friendlier and less distancing than "people with Williams."]

You can see where this is going. These days, when people express racism, they usually do so via subtle, layered meanings or coded phrases. Not too many come right out and say, "I think ___ people are inferior [or scary, etc.]." They convey it in phrasing that allows some plausible denial, perhaps even to the speaker. Such, for instance, was possibly the case when House Speaker Harry Reid reportedly said Obama could win because he was "light-skinned" and had "no Negro dialect." (I say possibly because it's conceivable -- though I think unlikely -- that Reid was making only a political observation about other people's racism.) One time my sister, hearing a remark along those lines, advised the speaker, "Excuse me, your cape is showing."

If such comments communicate racism, they can spread it too. But not to Williamses. Politely assuming straightforward talk, they notice neither the cape nor its ugly history.

[torchbearer]

what i'm pointing out is the very nature of xenophobia. its natural. something we are all born with as a genetic memory/instinct, that kept us alive throughout our evolution.

not an excuse for hating other people, but this explain why people may feel threatened by mexican's crossing the border when they don't feel the same about canadians.
one set of people looks similar, one does not.

[FrankRep]

How do you explain the large number of Legal Americans of Mexican descent that are against Illegal Immigration?

Racist/Xenophobic against themselves?



Ron Paul on ILLEGAL Immigration:

The Immigration Question (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html)

Ron Paul | LewRockwell.com
April 4, 2006

...


We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

[torchbearer]

How do you explain the large number of Legal Americans of Mexican descent that are against Illegal Immigration?

Racist/Xenophobic against themselves?



Ron Paul on ILLEGAL Immigration:

The Immigration Question (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html)

Ron Paul | LewRockwell.com
April 4, 2006

...


We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

let's look at what i posted- a scientific experiment that shows genetics to a be link to racism. as in, the bear looks different than me, it may be a threat gene.
its is natural. something that has kept us alive. it doesn't make you a bad person, nor does it necesarily control your actions if you understand it is there and ignore the warning signals it gives you.
i'm speaking matter of fact.

[torchbearer]

here is the article from live science:

Never has a human population been found that has no racial stereotypes. Not in other cultures or far-flung countries. Nor among tiny tots or people with various psychological conditions.

Until now.

Children with Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that makes them lack normal social anxiety, have no racial biases. They do, however, traffic in gender stereotypes, said study researcher Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg of the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

Normally, children show clear preferences for their own ethnic group by the age of three, if not sooner, other research has shown.

And, indeed, the children in this study without Williams syndrome reliably assigned good traits, such as friendliness, to pictures of people the same race as themselves. When asked something negative, such as "which is the naughty boy," they overwhelmingly pointed to the other race.

Children with Williams syndrome, however, were equally likely to point to the white or black child as naughty or friendly.

While this study was done with white children, other research has shown that blacks and people of other races also think more highly of their own, Meyer-Lindenberg told LiveScience.

Williams syndrome is caused by a gene deletion known to affect the brain as well as other organs. As a result, people with Williams syndrome are "hypersocial," Meyer-Lindenberg told . They do not experience the jitters and inhibitions the rest of us feel.

"The whole concept [of social anxiety] would be foreign to them," he said.

They will put themselves at great peril to help someone and despite their skills at empathy, are unable to process social danger signals. As a result, they are at increased risk for rape and physical attack.

Nature or nurture?

While the first human population to demonstrate race-neutrality is missing critical genes, "we are not saying that this is all biologically-based and you can't do anything about it," Meyer-Lindenberg said.

"Just because there is a genetic way to knock the system out, does not mean the system itself is 100 percent genetic," he said.

The study does show, however, that racism requires social fear. "If social fear was culturally reduced, racial stereotypes could also be reduced," Meyer-Lindenberg said.

Despite their lack of racial bias, children with Williams syndrome hold gender stereotypes just as strongly as normal children, the study found. That is, 99 percent of the 40 children studied pointed to pictures of girls when asked who played with dolls and chose boys when asked, say, who likes toy cars.

The fact that Williams syndrome kids think of men and women differently, but not blacks and whites, shows that sex stereotypes are not caused by social anxiety, Meyer-Lindenberg said.

This may be because we learn about gender within "safe" home environments, while a different race is usually a sign of someone outside our immediate kin. (Studies to test this explanation, such as with racially-mixed families, have not yet been done.)

Racial biases are likely rooted in a general fear of others, while gender stereotypes may arise from sweeping generalizations, Meyer-Lindenberg said. "You watch mother make the meals, so you generalize this to everyone female."

In their heads

Due to the present study, we now know that "gender and race are processed by different brain mechanisms," Meyer-Lindenberg said, although those involved in gender are less understood.

Previous work has shown that in the brains of people with Williams syndrome, the amygdala — the emotional seat of the brain — fails to respond to social threats. While the amygdala itself is functionally normal, it is misguided by the pre-frontal cortex — the executive of the brain — to block all social anxiety.

This system is now thought to underlie racism, but it seems uninvolved in the formation of sex stereotypes.

Meyer-Lindenberg and colleagues are now using brain imaging to get a clearer picture of how racism and sexism are differentiated in the brain. The present study was published in the journal Current Biology.

[Smitty]

My daughter is dating a very nice young man from Ecuador.

It's never occurred to me to be afraid of him,...but I'm still not an advocate of open borders.

[torchbearer]

My daughter is dating a very nice young man from Ecuador.

It's never occurred to me to be afraid of him,...but I'm still not an advocate of open borders.

meaning, it was fine for your ancestors to come here, but as far as anyone else- no way?
open borders means people are free to travel. as in, i don't need permission to travel. it is a right as an individual. if travel is not an individual right, then you are stuck at your home until you get permission from daddy government.
never figured out why "small government people" want a police state on their borders.
but most of the focus is the socialist of the south, not the socialist of the north. always a fascination as to why- since one is more like the majority here than the other.

[Smitty]

meaning, it was fine for your ancestors to come here, but as far as anyone else- no way?


No,...meaning that there's a proper and legal way to become a resident of any country.

,..and take your leftist crap to some place where it's appropriate,...like Democratic Underground.

[torchbearer]

No,...meaning that there's a proper and legal way to become a resident of any country.

,..and take your leftist crap to some place where it's appropriate,...like Democratic Underground.

oh you are one of those poor sods that believe in the false left-right paradigm.
well, wake up! there is only an up or a down. up to freedom or down to tyranny.
you have chosen down. maybe you don't belong here. now get those gears turning. time for you to think without fox news.

how about one of your god's explain what i mean:
YouTube - "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY)
ronald reagan explains the up and the down. which one are you?

[angelatc]

You should have titled this "How to Build a Strawman."

I seem to recall that you believed that the states, and not the fed, had the right to control immigration. So why are you all fired up about a law that 70% of Arizona citizens support, exactly?

[torchbearer]

You should have titled this "How to Build a Strawman."

I seem to recall that you believed that the states, and not the fed, had the right to control immigration. So why are you all fired up about a law that 70% of Arizona citizens support, exactly?

did you read the research? social fear/fear of different/strange is linked to genetics.
and i forgot, we are democracy, so if 70% of the citizens believe jews should be shot, that makes it right.
thanks for the clarification.

[Smitty]

oh you are one of those poor sods that believe in the false left-right paradigm.
well, wake up! there is only an up or a down. up to freedom or down to tyranny.
you have chosen down. maybe you don't belong here. now get those gears turning. time for you to think without fox news.

how about one of your god's explain what i mean:
ronald reagan explains the up and the down. which one are you?

No,..I'm just a realist who understands that the doors of America can't be completely open to the entire world with no restraint.

That's a recipe for the end of America.

Wanting to save America isn't indicative of xenophobia.

Being a libertarian doesn't mean being stupid.

[angelatc]

did you read the research? social fear/fear of different/strange is linked to genetics.
and i forgot, we are democracy, so if 70% of the citizens believe jews should be shot, that makes it right.
thanks for the clarification.

Again with the strawman, Torch.

Earlier you said that the states should have the right to set their own immigration policy. So, why are you so upset that Arizona has just done that?

[torchbearer]

Again with the strawman, Torch.

Earlier you said that the states should have the right to set their own immigration policy. So, why are you so upset that Arizona has just done that?

where on this forum did i say i was upset with arizona's law?
where?

[torchbearer]

I just posted this article so that the clueless would get a clue. as in, when i state a post hints of xenophobia, you know what i'm talking about.
in sociology, we always considered xenophobia as natural, not malicious (though i can be).
its not a character judgement to say someone is xenophibic. that is the point. its not a way to end debate. it just pointing out a matter of fact. it is natural in 99% of humans. small fraction that has williams syndrome are immune to it.

[angelatc]

where on this forum did i say i was upset with arizona's law?
where?

Do you seriously think I believe that the timing of this thread is coincidental?

[torchbearer]

doors of America can't be completely open to the entire world with no restraint.

why? do you know of someone who means to harm the US? then keep that person out. not a whole "class" of people based on your fears. Your fears control you. It is what the government wants.

[torchbearer]

Do you seriously think I believe that the timing of this thread is coincidental?

as in, i read this article a few nights ago and decided to post it today?
yes.. it is coincidence. it follows up all my previous post on xenophobia. people take it as a negative term, when its just a factual descriptor of the nature of humanity.

[angelatc]

I just posted this article so that the clueless would get a clue. as in, when i state a post hints of xenophobia, you know what i'm talking about.
in sociology, we always considered xenophobia as natural, not malicious (though i can be).
its not a character judgement to say someone is xenophibic. that is the point. its not a way to end debate. it just pointing out a matter of fact. it is natural in 99% of humans. small fraction that has williams syndrome are immune to it.

It's just a bullshit way to say "Forgive them, Lord. They know not what they do."

Obviously in your eyes, we are simply unevolved - animals who are simply not capable of the advanced thought processes necessary to reach the proper conclusion. There's no point in trying to change our hearts.

The thing you always seem to miss is that nobody gives a rats ass about the color of their skins, no matter how much you insist they do.

[angelatc]

as in, i read this article a few nights ago and decided to post it today?
yes.. it is coincidence.

Of course it is. :rolleyes:

And this place is sooo full of xenophobes, we're lucky to have you posting such scholarly articles to show us the errors of our ways.

And putting it in "general politics" instead of something appropriate? What's the logic behind that?

[torchbearer]

It's just a bullshit way to say "Forgive them, Lord. They know not what they do."

Obviously in your eyes, we are simply unevolved - animals who are simply not capable of the advanced thought processes necessary to reach the proper conclusion. There's no point in trying to change our hearts.

The thing you always seem to miss is that nobody gives a rats ass about the color of their skins, no matter how much you insist they do.


you can only speak for yourself, unless you have done the research.
prior to this study, research still pointed to xenophobia as natural. it is a survival trait. it is the very thing that tells you instinctively that the creepy guy at the end of the bar might be bad news. its called genetic memory. people used to call it instinct.
i know, science outside the herbalist/alchemist are scorn here, but your post is technically false.

[torchbearer]

Of course it is. :rolleyes:

And this place is sooo full of xenophobes, we're lucky to have you posting such scholarly articles to show us the errors of our ways.

And putting it in "general politics" instead of something appropriate? What's the logic behind that?

this world is filled with xenophobes. did you even read the research?
there is a whole segment of people who cannot even fathom the idea of race, and they are all tied together by a missing gene. a gene that prevents them from feeling social anxiety. and there is the link.
we already knew the correlation existed, now we have the hard evidence to back up the data. if you fear anything different that you- you are xenophobic.
scared of spiders or snakes? bears? those are different that you, your body tells you it could be dangerous. that is natural.
same goes with outward appearances of humans.

[angelatc]

Pish. It's a PC tool used by the one-worlders to shame us into silence.

Science? Laughable.

ANd again, why did you post it in politics if it is intended as a science lesson?

A better understanding of Williams Syndrome:


The most common symptoms of Williams syndrome are mental disability, heart defects, and unusual facial features. Other symptoms include failure to gain weight appropriately and low muscle tone. Individuals with Williams syndrome are highly verbal and overly sociable (having what had previously been described as a "cocktail party" type personality), but lack common sense and typically have inhibited intelligence.

[torchbearer]

Pish. It's a PC tool used by the one-worlders to shame us into silence.

Science? Laughable.

Yes, i understand you don't believe in science or its methods, but that doesn't make it false.
those people who read these words and are honest with themselves know what i'm talking about....
getting on the subway and getting nervous about the rift raft that has entered your car. its natural.

[angelatc]

Yes, i understand you don't believe in science or its methods, but that doesn't make it false.
those people who read these words and are honest with themselves know what i'm talking about....
getting on the subway and getting nervous about the rift raft that has entered your car. its natural.

Can you possibly be any more condescending? It's very likely that all they proved is that the children didn't pick up the cues their parents give off, which seems to be in line with the other social traits they exhibit.

I believe in science. I don't believe in all sciences. Psychology and sociology are really low on my credibility list.

Why is this in politics, exactly?

[torchbearer]

Can you possibly be any more condescending? It's very likely that all they proved is that the children didn't pick up the cues their parents give off, which seems to be in line with the other social traits they exhibit.

I believe in science. I don't believe in all sciences. Psychology and sociology are really low on my credibility list.

Why is this in politics, exactly?

no.
because your nature controls your politics, unless you understand your nature.

[angelatc]

no.
because your nature controls your politics, unless you understand your nature.

And what's your nature?

[torchbearer]

And what's your nature?

that is a short question with a very long answer.
in context of this thread, i was indeed born xenophobic. people who look different can inspire anxiety.
creatures that look different do inspire fear or caution. it kept me alive from my earliest years. it kept my ancestors alive.
the current research wasn't a realization for me, just a confirmation of all the previous research i have read.
you aren't taking this as a time of learning, just an insult because you think i don't like AZ's law or something superficial like that. you can't even fathom the idea that this is important to your development as a human.

[angelatc]

that is a short question with a very long answer.
in context of this thread, i was indeed born xenophobic. people who look different can inspire anxiety.
craetures that look different do inspire fear or caution. it kept me alive from my earliest years. it kept my ancestors alive.
the current research wasn't a realization for me, just a confirmation of all the previous research i have read.
you aren't taking this as a time of learning, just an insult because you think i don't like AZ's law or something superficial like that. you can't even fathom the idea that this is important to your development as a human.

That's about what I thought. You consider yourself to be a superior being.

I already know you're an open borders advocate who always resorts to the "you're all racists!" argument when the topic comes up.

You're right. I have have too many proven economic arguments to make against open borders to pretend to give a whit about some government funded, UN talking point hot air from academia. I have no interest in sociology. I am a right-brained person who has absolutely no use for the abstractions of the liberal sciences.

Development as a human? Spare me the drama. Seriously, I sound more like a man than you do right now.

[torchbearer]

That's about what I thought. You consider yourself to be a superior being.

I already know you're an open borders advocate who always resorts to the "you're all racists!" argument when the topic comes up.

You're right. I have have too many proven economic arguments to make against open borders to pretend to give a whit about some government funded, UN talking point hot air from academia. I have no interest in sociology. I am a right-brained person who has absolutely no use for the abstractions of the liberal sciences.

Development as a human? Spare me the drama. Seriously, I sound more like a man than you do right now.

a superior human because of what?
i accept my nature?
you sound like someone on the losing side of an argument. you don't have the facts to back you up, so you act the 'victim'. none of your previous post change any of the facts, nor introduces contrary facts. no substance, no value.
that shit don't work with me. try again.

[torchbearer]

a hint: i'm waiting for someone to put up info that shows xenophobia to be a rare case of severe neurosis with no connection to common human genes.

[angelatc]

a hint: i'm waiting for someone to put up info that shows xenophobia to be a rare case of severe neurosis with no connection to common human genes.

While you're waiting, chew on this: nobody cares.

[torchbearer]

While you're waiting, chew on this: nobody cares.

actually, it would be more correct to say, you don't care. but even then- you care enough to post on here.
there is actually a lot of people who care among the scientist. this research is actually huge. too bad you can't see the forest for the trees.

http://www.moma.org/images/dynamic_content/exhibition_page/31298.jpg

You cannot see the big picture, as you are immersed in the details. You have to get out of the forest to see it, because while you are in the forest, you only see the trees that comprise the forest; but you cannot see the forest as a whole. When you are focusing on details, it is more difficult to see the issue as a whole, as you can only see the details that comprise the issue.

[low preference guy]

This whole science thing sounds like made up justification for racism. Like Nazi physics.

Racism is based on prejudices spread in a culture. Realizing that people of other races are humans and seeing examples of outstanding people of a different race usually cures racism in most open minded individuals.

[torchbearer]

This whole science thing sounds like made up justification for racism. Like Nazi physics.

Racism is based on prejudices spread in a culture. Realizing that people of other races are humans and seeing examples of outstanding people of a different race usually cures racism in most open minded individuals.

this isn't made up to push a political point of view. you can read all hundred articles on google, and not one mentions anything about open borders/immigration.
the research was actually a surprise. we didn't think we'd see anything so conclusive concerning the question of racial bias.
of course, i doubt anyone here has been studying this shit for as long as i have, so you haven't been on this journey. its just disappointing to see people block out any truth that contradicts their politics.
I expect it from neocons, but then again, most people here used to fit right along with all the other lemmings. so i guess, nothing should surprise me. but they still do.

[torchbearer]

YouTube - "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY)

If you haven't seen this reagan speech, i highly recommend it. compare what he is talking about in 1964 to what we are experiencing today. see how much has changed... and how much really hasn't.

[low preference guy]

I just don't buy the attribution of attitudes to genes. I don't buy for instance the psychiatrists that want to cure your mental problems drugging you up. I think your problems are with deep entrenched beliefs that should be explored and changed through introspection. I believe this because that's how I solve my problems: trying to think why I think the way I do and change if something is wrong. I'm not an automaton such that a bunch of chemicals have control over me. I believe I have free will.

[torchbearer]

I just don't buy the attribution of attitudes to genes. I don't buy for instance the psychiatrists that want to cure your mental problems drugging you up. I think your problems are with deep entrenched beliefs that should be explored and changed through introspection. I believe this because that's how I solve my problems: trying to think why I think the way I do and change if something is wrong. I'm not an automaton such that a bunch of chemicals have control over me. I believe I have free will.

you chemistry is determined by your dna. i don't have the patience to teach you biology, but at a price- you can learn it anywhere.

[Smitty]

this isn't made up to push a political point of view. you can read all hundred articles on google, and not one mentions anything about open borders/immigration.
the research was actually a surprise. we didn't think we'd see anything so conclusive concerning the question of racial bias.
of course, i doubt anyone here has been studying this shit for as long as i have, so you haven't been on this journey. its just disappointing to see people block out any truth that contradicts their politics.
I expect it from neocons, but then again, most people here used to fit right along with all the other lemmings. so i guess, nothing should surprise me. but they still do.

People like you are the reason that people in the liberty movement have to constantly fight off the "loon" label.

Do us all a favor and stifle your wacky psuedo science.

[angelatc]

actually, it would be more correct to say, you don't care. but even then- you care enough to post on here.
there is actually a lot of people who care among the scientist. this research is actually huge. too bad you can't see the forest for the trees.

http://www.moma.dynamic_content/exhibition_page/31298.jpg

Blah blah blah.

The only reason I posted here is because i thought ( and still believe) that the discussion was originally intended to point out your moral superiority in reference to the Arizona immigration law.

It doesn't belong in politics, unless you're advocating we exploit this for political gain....

[low preference guy]

you chemistry is determined by your dna. i don't have the patience to teach you biology, but at a price- you can learn it anywhere.

Sure, dna shapes chemistry. What I don't buy is that my chemistry determines what I think. At some point I believed in God, because my parent told me. Then I thought about it and figured out it didn't make sense to me. Also, a person who is racist might just think about it. Why do I hate people of this color? Does the color of the skin determine their actions? Well, there is at least one black person who is smart, caring, compassionate, and fun... then they're not all the same. Once the person realizes that, he can stop being racist.

[torchbearer]

People like you are the reason that people in the liberty movement have to constantly fight off the "loon" label.

Do us all a favor and stifle your wacky psuedo science.

its not my science. its the scientific method used by all scientist.
this isn't my research, it is a long string of research that has come to the end point of definitive conclusion.
if it helps you sleep at night, burn the truth sayers and keep believing the world is flat.

[torchbearer]

Sure, dna shapes chemistry. What I don't buy is that my chemistry determines what I think. At some point I believed in God, because my parent told me. Then I thought about it and figured out it didn't make sense to me. Also, a person who is racist might just think about it. Why do I hate this people? Does the color of the skin determine their actions? Well, there is at least one black person who is smart, caring, compassionate, and fun... then they're not all the same. Once the person realizes that, he can stop being racist.

you may not want to believe it, but your chemistry not only determines what you think, but how you think, when you think, and why you think.

[low preference guy]

you may not want to believe it, but your chemistry not only determines what you think, but how you think, when you think, and why you think.

Are you a determinist?

[torchbearer]

Are you a determinist?

define determinist from your point of view and i will answer.

[low preference guy]

define determinist from your point of view and i will answer.

There is no such thing as "choice". All your actions are determined by the composition of your body and your influences.

[torchbearer]

There is no such thing as "choice". All your actions are determined by the composition of your body and your influences.

no, i'd be more of a behaviorist.

Behaviorism (or behaviourism), also called the learning perspective (where any physical action is a behavior), is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition that all things that organisms do — including acting, thinking and feeling — can and should be regarded as behaviors.[1] The school of psychology maintains that behaviors as such can be described scientifically without recourse either to internal physiological events or to hypothetical constructs such as the mind.[2] Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories should have observational correlates but that there are no philosophical differences between publicly observable processes (such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as thinking and feeling).[3]

From early psychology in the 19th century, the behaviorist school of thought ran concurrently and shared commonalities with the psychoanalytic and Gestalt movements in psychology into the 20th century; but also differed from the mental philosophy of the Gestalt psychologists in critical ways.[citation needed] Its main influences were Ivan Pavlov, who investigated classical conditioning, Edward Lee Thorndike, John B. Watson who rejected introspective methods and sought to restrict psychology to experimental methods, and B.F. Skinner who conducted research on operant conditioning.[3]

In the second half of the twentieth century, behaviorism was largely eclipsed as a result of the cognitive revolution.[citation needed] Though these two schools of psychological thought may not agree theoretically, they have complemented each other in practical therapeutic applications. One notable legacy of behaviorist investigations is Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, a popular treatment that uses cognitive models alongside behaviorist techniques such as 'systematic desensitization' and 'contingency management' that have demonstrable utility in helping people with certain pathologies, such as simple phobias, PTSD, and addiction.


though I must admit, that i completely rejected these people when i first started my sociological study. but over the years of study and experiment... they have been proven right, depsite the fact i wanted them to be wrong.
i'm also a phenomonoligist and a symobolic interactionist.

[low preference guy]

OK, I'm going to tell you the truth now:

You will not change my mind, because my genes and environment force me to believe that all your science is bullcrap.

If you just do a study, you'll probably prove that.




..../joke

[Smitty]

i'm also a phenomonoligist.

Ain't that, like,.the study of knots on people's heads?

[torchbearer]

OK, I'm going to tell you the truth now:

You will not change my mind, because my genes and environment force me to believe that all your science is bullcrap.

If you just do a study, you'll probably prove that.

..../joke

society tells you that you are a bad person if you feel anxiety/fear for people who are different than you.
that is the natural response.

[torchbearer]

Ain't that, like,.the study of knots on people's heads?

its the study of words. more specifically, how people understand what you are saying... "you know what i mean?"
/jk

[Smitty]

People have to study that?

[torchbearer]

People have to study that?

yes. because most people crumble up paper before they throw it away.

[Smitty]

Maybe you should study OCD for a while,...

[torchbearer]

Maybe you should study OCD for a while,...

Ayn Rand talks about two classes of people, those who think and those who imitate.

People who imitate, crumble up paper before they throw it away because they saw someone else do that.
People who keep their paper straight know that by doing that, they can put more paper in their trash can.

Some people are just reactions to their environment, and some people transcend that fate by understanding why others are just reactions to their environment.


Almost all conversations are acts of manipulation that have only 4 possible outcomes- win-win, win-lose,lose-win, lose-lose.

The bureaucratic structure, one over few.

these are the some of the many reasons why you should take the time to think.

[angelatc]

yes. because most people crumble up paper before they throw it away.

LOL! That's a physics study, not a sociology study. People crumble up the paper because it's more likely to actually land in the can that way.

[torchbearer]

LOL! That's a physics study, not a sociology study. People crumble up the paper because it's more likely to land in the can that way.

it is also a sociological study, though its determination of truth is based in physics.
answer this question- why do most people crumble paper up before they throw it away even though, using physics, it can be seen that keeping the paper flat is more efficient?
that is the sociological question.
the dimensions of the paper is a physics problem. why people do stupid shit is a sociological question.

[low preference guy]

I think I don't crumble paper before I throw it away (although I do fold it sometimes). I put them in a folder in a very orderly fashion... what I don't remember is whether I throw away the folder or not. And I never thought about the physics argument. Crumbling paper seems an aggressive action for some reason.

[angelatc]

it is also a sociological study, though its determination of truth is based in physics.
answer this question- why do most people crumble paper up before they throw it away even though, using physics, it can be seen that keeping the paper flat is more efficient?
that is the sociological question.
the dimensions of the paper is a physics problem. why people do stupid shit is a sociological question.

Because keeping the paper flat isn't more efficient! A flat piece of paper doesn't land in the can nearly as often as a wadded piece does.

[torchbearer]

I think I don't crumble paper before I throw it away (although I do fold it sometimes). I put them in a folder in a very orderly fashion... what I don't remember is whether I throw away the folder or not. And I never thought about the physics argument. Crumbling paper seems an aggressive action for some reason.

you are the only one who knows if you are actions are a deliberate act based on thought, or just a an action based on repetition.

[low preference guy]

you are the only one who knows if you are actions are a deliberate act based on thought, or just a an action based on repetition.



I think it's just repetition for me. But hey, I'm not your average guy. Proof of that is that I have almost 2000 posts at RPF.

[torchbearer]

Because keeping the paper flat isn't more efficient! A flat piece of paper doesn't land in the can nearly as often as a wadded piece does.

Pseudo-science.

you can fit more paper in the trash can if your leave it flat,
your argument is only valid if the trash can has smaller dimensions than the paper. which usually isn't the case. because if its a thin trash can, you can just place the paper in it side-ways.
you will still get more paper in the trash if you don't crumble the paper. because after you crumble the paper, the only way you can make more room is by flattening it again.

[angelatc]

you can fit more paper in the trash can if your leave it flat,
your argument is only valid if the trash can has small dimensions than the paper. which usually isn't the case. because its a thin trash can, you can just place the paper in it side-ways.
you will still get more paper in the trash if you don't crumble the paper. because after you crumble the paper, the only way you can make more room is by flattening it again.

But your argument is only valid if you believe that the objective is to see how much garbage can fit into a can. Most people have that pretty low on their list of priorities.

Actually getting the paper into the can is the priority.

The can doesn't have to have smaller dimensions than the paper. The smaller the object, the more likely it is to go into the opening. A flat piece of paper gets caught by the resistance of the air. It doesn't fall straight down.

Also, flat paper doesn't even fall to the bottom of the can properly. If you have a can that's 8-1/2 x 11, you can drop a flat piece of paper in and the static will affect it before it hits the bottom.

If you put the paper in sideways, it folds over on its own. You would need to either straighten it up again or squash it to the bottom to fit the next piece in.

[torchbearer]

But your argument is only valid if you believe that the objective is to see how much garbage can fit into a can. Most people have that pretty low on their list of priorities.

Actually getting the paper into the can is the priority.

The can doesn't have to have smaller dimensions than the paper. The smaller the object, the more likely it is to go into the opening. A flat piece of paper gets caught by the resistance of the air. It doesn't fall straight down.

Also, flat paper doesn't even fall to the bottom of the can properly. If you have a can that's 8-1/2 x 11, you can drop a flat piece of paper in and the static will affect it before it hits the bottom.

i don't know where you get the assumption that missing the trashcan takes priority.its like you picture everyone taking a 5ft shot to the trash can, when most people actually are withint a foot or 2 from the trash can and the reason they crumble their paper is not a thought.
as when, asked in survey, why you crumble paper before you throw it away- most answers are none or no thought about it.
I learned this at an early age by someone who thought. People literally crumble up paper because it was a previously observed behavior.

[torchbearer]

here is an activity for angelatc tomorrow-
buy two large trashbags and 10 packages of printer paper.
i want you to take 5 of those packages and place them, unopened into one trash bad.
then, i want you to take the other 5 packages of printer paper and crumble up each sheet and see if you can fit that paper in the same volume.

[angelatc]

i don't know where you get the assumption that missing the trashcan takes priority.its like you picture everyone taking a 5ft shot to the trash can, when most people actually are withint a foot or 2 from the trash can and the reason they crumble their paper is not a thought.
as when, asked in survey, why you curmble paper before you throw it away- most answers are none or no thought about it.
I learned this at an early age by someone who thought. People literally crumble up paper because it was a previously observed behavior.

You learned wrong from someone who thought wrong. People crush the paper because they've learned it's more likely to go into the can that way. Just because they don't think about it doesn't mean it isn't true.

If I stand with my hand two feet over a standard issue garbage can and drop a flat piece of paper, I can promise you that it will miss far more often than if I wad the paper and drop it from the same point.

Your mentor seriously thinks that dropping a flat piece of paper straight down means the paper will fall straight down?

[torchbearer]

You learned wrong from someone who thought wrong. People crush the paper because they've learned it's more likely to go into the can that way. Just because they don't think about it doesn't mean it isn't true.

If I stand with my hand two feet over a standard issue garbage can and drop a flat piece of paper, I can promise you that it will miss far more often than if I wad the paper and drop it from the same point.

Your mentor seriously thinks that dropping a flat piece of paper straight down means the paper will fall straight down?

that is not so. you've been assigned homework. let me know what you come up with.
i've never had a problem getting paper to the trash. so if you are having trouble. it must be laziness. unless you are claiming a high wind draft at every trash location, thus, claiming the crumbled up paper has less wind resistance. which, like your nazi border policy is retarded. but at least we have it on record in this thread.
you know, and i know that you know more paper will sit in a trash can flat and that most people don't crumble their paper up actively think that if they kept it flat they would miss their objective.
the intellectual dishonesty of this thread falls solely on you. not sure if this is accidental to your ignorance or purposeful to your malicious politics.

[angelatc]

that is not so. you've been assigned homework. let me know what you come up with.

I just did it. The paper landed about 3 feet to my right. Flat paper encounters more resistance than wadded paper. It doesn't fall straight down.

Now that's science.

Apparently the fact that I actually did think about it seems to be troubling.

ETA: I just went into the kitchen, and went to throw another paper away. Because not all the objects in the garbage are paper, and I need to take the garbage out, if I don't crush the paper, it will lay on top of the garbage, likely to fly off when any light breeze comes through the window. If I crush the paper, it falls into a space in the can, and is pretty much staying there unless we get a gale force wind roaring through, knocking the whole can over.

[torchbearer]

I just did it. The paper landed about 3 feet to my right. Flat paper encounters more resistance than wadded paper.

Now that's science.

Apparently the fact that I actually did think about it seems to be troubling.

I just dropped a sheet of paper in my trash can. left it flat. it fell right in. maybe you are mentally retarded. can't exactly make the high-five meet up. ya know?
http://www.pophangover.com/fanorban/pics/71908-4.jpg
"See, i missed the high five, therefore science is invalid"

[torchbearer]

pervious post meaning- if i'm throwing a piece of flat paper away, and i'm not dropping it into the trashcan, instead, i'm putting distance between the paper and the trash can... then the defect is the operator for not understand that you can't toss a flat piece of paper over a distance and expect it to not meet wind resistance.

[angelatc]

here is an activity for angelatc tomorrow-
buy two large trashbags and 10 packages of printer paper.
i want you to take 5 of those packages and place them, unopened into one trash bad.
then, i want you to take the other 5 packages of printer paper and crumble up each sheet and see if you can fit that paper in the same volume.

Nobody is denying that more flat paper will fit into a bag than wadded paper. Try to move past that.

I am pointing out that people crumple paper for a valid reason, and that it's not simply mimicry with no real purpose, even if they don't think about it when they're doing it.

[torchbearer]

Nobody is denying that more flat paper will fit into a bag than wadded paper. Try to move past that.

I am pointing out that people crumple paper for a valid reason, and that it's not simply mimicry with no real purpose, even if they don't think about it when they're doing it.

survey says... no thought is put into it. its just an immitation. not an internet statistic. not sure if google will find it. but it is science. most people imitate. paper disposal is only one of many example. the action is not deliberate, but imitation.
monkey see, monkey do.

[torchbearer]

ok, google is sad. i went to find the research on the paper/trash thing and the first link is to this thread.
i will have to make time to revist Dr. Pippin to get the info.

[angelatc]

I just dropped a sheet of paper in my trash can. left it flat. it fell right in. maybe you are mentally retarded. can't exactly make the high-five meet up. ya know?
http://www.poph/fanorban/pics/71908-4.jpg
"See, i missed the high five, therefore science is invalid"

That doesn't make sense. My paper did not fall straight down, as I predicted. Therefore, my science is perfectly valid. Maybe you're just a dick who can't admit that he could be wrong about the reason that people crumple paper up when they're throwing it away.

[torchbearer]

That doesn't make sense. My paper did not fall straight down, as I predicted. Therefore, my science is perfectly valid. Maybe you're just a dick who can't admit that he could be wrong about the reason that people crumple paper up when they're throwing it away.

i place my paper in a manner that it would fall without missing. it required an active thought process on my part, which i must conceded, is not the rule for humanity.
maybe you proved my point.

[angelatc]

survey says... no thought is put into it. its just an immitation. not an internet statistic. not sure if google will find it. but it is science. most people imitate. paper disposal is only one of many example. the action is not deliberate, but imitation.
monkey see, monkey do.

God you are so thick! No thought need be put into it! We learned by practicing good garbage habits as toddlers. By the time we're old enough to think about it, it's already habit.

The action is deliberate and it serves a definite purpose.

[torchbearer]

God you are so thick! No thought need be put into it! We learned by practicing good garbage habits as toddlers. By the time we're old enough to think about it, it's already habit.

The action is deliberate and it serves a definite purpose.

no the process is inefficient and waste space. just because you can't manage to get a flat piece of paper into the trash doesn't negate the fact the crumble paper takes up way more space in the trash bin that a flat piece of paper. it also doesn't negate the fact that your inability to get flat paper into the trash is your own handicap as it is not shared with people who actually think about what they are doing.

[angelatc]

i place my paper in a manner that it would fall without missing. it required an active thought process on my part, which i must conceded, is not the rule for humanity.
maybe you proved my point.

So, you're more advanced because you have to think about getting your paper into your garbage can?

Or is it because you enjoy smug feeling you get by purposely not crumpling it makes you think of a process that most of us do by rote?

We're learned a method to toss our paper without even thinking about it. You're not there yet. Good luck with that.

[torchbearer]

in case you missed it, your homework for tomorrow:

buy two large trashbags and 10 packages of printer paper.
i want you to take 5 of those packages and place them, unopened into one trash bad.
then, i want you to take the other 5 packages of printer paper and crumble up each sheet and see if you can fit that paper in the same volume.


here is a hint. flat paper has wind resistance becuase it has more of a surface. place the paper in the trash. yes, i know you will have to actually take notice to how you dispose of the paper, but that is part of the project.
just changing how you drop paper in the trash can make a huge difference. a point also made to the guy claiming i'm should study OCD. (which i have).

[torchbearer]

So, you're more advanced because you have to think about getting your paper into your garbage can?

Or is it because you enjoy smug feeling you get by purposely not crumpling it makes you think of a process that most of us do by rote?

We're learned a method to toss our paper without even thinking about it. You're not there yet. Good luck with that.

no. its about thinking about your actions. every one of them before you commit to them.
it is about trying to be efficient in everything you do because it brings you the most wealth. if i use less trash bags over my lifetime, then i've saved resources and money to be used in the future. (savings)

its only an easy example to bring up something everyone has experience with. only the guilty try to deflect blame.

[angelatc]

no the process is inefficient and waste space. just because you can't manage to get a flat piece of paper into the trash doesn't negate the fact the crumble paper takes up way more space in the trash bin that a flat piece of paper. it also doesn't negate the fact that your inability to get flat paper into the trash is your own handicap as it is not shared with people who actually think about what they are doing.

It isn't inefficient because it improves accuracy. Saving space isn't the objective for rational human beings.

I promise you that my paper not falling straight down has nothing to do with my mental capacity. It may be that my paper is thinner than yours, or that there's a breeze in my living room but not in your basement.

There is no real scientist in the world that would insist that a flat piece of paper is just as likely to fall straight down as a balled up paper.

[torchbearer]

It isn't inefficient because it improves accuracy. Saving space isn't the objective for rational human beings.

I promise you that my paper not falling straight down has nothing to do with my mental capacity. It may be that my paper is thinner than yours, or that there's a breeze in my living room but not in your basement.

There is no real scientist in the world that would insist that a flat piece of paper is just as likely to fall straight down as a balled up paper.

it will fall right if you only drop it a few inches lower than your crumbled paper drop.
the amount of time it takes to lower your arm over the trashcan is not comparable to amount of waste people make by crumbling up paper.

[torchbearer]

the same principle applies to people who throw away boxes that aren't broken down. same inefficiency.

[aravoth]

you may not want to believe it, but your chemistry not only determines what you think, but how you think, when you think, and why you think.

Disagree, chemistry is not consciousness.

[angelatc]

no its about thinking about your actions. every one of them before you commit to them.
it is about trying to be efficient in everything you do because it brings you the most wealth. if i use less trash bags over my lifetime, then i've saved resources and money to be used in the future. (savings)

its only an easy example to bring up something everyone has experience with. only the guilty try to deflect blame.

Thinking about every one of your actions before you commit to them - I've been here a long time, Torch, and that's really rich coming from you. I'll leave that at that.

All I did was to point out that there are indeed very valid reasons to wad paper before throwing it away. You seem to be taking it as a personal attack.

"That isn't be true! Angela is mentally retarded because she doesn't think about throwing her paper away like I do, except she did think about it and came to a different conclusion that is substantiated by the physics of falling objects!"

This is why we call it pseudo-science.

[torchbearer]

Disagree, chemistry is not consciousness.

you can say that all you want, and if it helps you sleep at night- then just believe it.
but its not true. without the chemistry of the brain there are no thoughts, no memories, no feelings, no emotions.
want to feel happy? take an Xstacy pill. it chemical agitates your brain.
want to sleep deeply? take seriquil. its chemically induces dopamine which makes you sleep.
want to expereince sociopathia? take crystal meth for a week straight.
are you shy? or are you outgoing? = chemical.
are you a fearful ape or are you brave = chemical
prozac can change you from being a self-hating introvert with a vendetta against the world into a peace loving hippy. just by changing your chemicals.

your predispostion towards certain behaviors are predetermined by DNA. the best way to combat that is to understand why it happens and how.

[torchbearer]

Thinking about every one of your actions before you commit to them - I've been here a long time, Torch, and that's really rich coming from you. I'll leave that at that.

All I did was to point out that there are indeed very valid reasons to wad paper before throwing it away. You seem to be taking it as a personal attack.

"That isn't be true! Angela is mentally retarded because she doesn't think about throwing her paper away like I do, except she did think about it and came to a different conclusion that is substantiated by the physics of falling objects!"

This is why we call it pseudo-science.

You take my basic science and put in an absurd exception. then you act like you are suprised to get such a response.
same tactic as used before, still not working. try facts next time. oh wait, none really support your politics. so let's just stick to meaningless testimonies of your inability to get paper into your trash can.

[angelatc]

it will fall right if you only drop it a few inches lower than your crumbled paper drop.
the amount of time it takes to lower your arm over the trashcan is not comparable to amount of waste people make by crumbling up paper.

I don't know how to use words that are any smaller. People aren't seeking efficiency. They're seeking to reduce the odds that they'll miss the container.

You're not taking into account that people aren't even always throwing their papers into the same containers. Walking through the park the cans have holes only slightly bigger than a soda can. A really small trashcan under the desk. Those rolling bins next to the copy machine. Some have lids you have to push open.

By making the paper smaller, we do everything we can to increase the odds of actually making it into the can.

Not needing to think about it every time is not some flaw in our processes. Automation is the epitome of efficiency.

[torchbearer]

Automation is the epitome of efficiency.

translation-
imitation is the epitome of laziness.

[angelatc]

You take my basic science and put in an absurd exception. then you act like you are suprised to get such a response.
same tactic as used before, still not working. try facts next time. oh wait, none really support your politics. so let's just stick to meaningless testimonies of your inability to get paper into your trash can.

The fact that flat paper doesn't fall straight down because of the resistance of the air is an absurd exception?

My paper goes in fine, because I'm smart enough to wad it up. Because I actually do know why I wad it up seems to infuriate you though, which I am enjoying far too much.

And this has nothing to do with politics.

[torchbearer]

The fact that flat paper doesn't fall straight down because of the resistance of the air is an absurd exception?

My paper goes in fine, because I'm smart enough to wad it up. Because I actually do know why I wad it up seems to infuriate you though, which I am enjoying far too much.

And this has nothing to do with politics.

its only absurd if you had to drop your paper from 3 feet above the trash can because of common physical limits. that is not the case.
if i wanted to try and disprove my theory, i could drop flat pieces of paper from 20ft above the trash can and say- "see, keeping paper flat is inefficient"
when i throw shit away, i literally place it into the trash can. it didn't require any more effort to do so. and it saves me trash bags in the end.

[angelatc]

translation-
imitation is the epitome of laziness.

That makes no sense. Most people can throw their paper away without even thinking about it, because they subconsciously react to the implications of the laws of physics by wadding up their paper, leaving their brain free to process something else.

But that's a bad thing?

[torchbearer]

This is a case of the guilty trying to reason guilt away.
and i'm not saying people who aren't efficient should be imprisoned, i'm just saying they are not thinking their every action out.
The guilty call me OCD because i make each action deliberate and purposeful with a fully thought out philosophy on why i do it.
The guy who pointed out earlier that i'm a "kook" of sorts is correct in the sense that most people don't think.

[torchbearer]

That makes no sense. Most people can throw their paper away without even thinking about it, because they subconsciously react to the implications of the laws of physics by wadding up their paper, leaving their brain free to process something else.

But that's a bad thing?

to do things without logical purpose is a bad thing. yes. that is why mitt romney and sarah palin are winning in national polls.

[angelatc]

its only absurd if you had to drop your paper from 3 feet above the trash can because of common physical limits. that is not the case.
if i wanted to try and disprove my theory, i could drop flat pieces of paper from 20ft above the trash can and say- "see, keeping paper flat is inefficient"
when i throw shit away, i literally place it into the trash can. it didn't require any more effort to do so. and it saves me trash bags in the end.

You use bags? For your paper waste?

In any event, this isn't about you. This is about your assertion that there's no scientifically valid reason to wad paper up before throwing it away - that the only reason people do that is because they're mimicking those that have gone before them - and that's simply not true.

I suspect you're unable to wad a paper up before you throw it away because you now view it as a psychological weakness. Which it isn't.

[angelatc]

to do things without logical purpose is a bad thing. yes. .

But there is a logical purpose. Like it or not, the odds of the paper falling into the can increase dramatically if the paper is wadded up.

[angelatc]

This is a case of the guilty trying to reason guilt away.
and i'm not saying people who aren't efficient should be imprisoned, i
.

Dude, there's nothing efficient about thinking excessively about something as mundane as each and every piece of paper you throw away.

[torchbearer]

You use bags? For your paper waste?

In any event, this isn't about you. This is about your assertion that there's no scientifically valid reason to wad paper up before throwing it away - that the only reason people do that is because they're mimicking those that have gone before them - and that's simply not true.

I suspect you're unable to wad a paper up before you throw it away because you now view it as a psychological weakness. Which it isn't.

but the research states otherwise, if only I had a google link for you.. then you can move on to your next excuse for me to debunk.
people don't like different looking creatures because of genetic memory.
people perform the most simple task based on immitation.

these things you can argue with me until the sun explodes, but the science is always on my side. only a handful of people actually think. and a portion of those people just think they think.
people who have political positions they feel emotionally attached too can't really make for good character witnesses, and those who denounce the scientific method have just held up a sign that reads "look at me, i'm retarded" lizard people r 4 realz/

[torchbearer]

Dude, there's nothing efficient about thinking excessively about something as mundane as each and every piece of paper you throw away.

over a lifetime it is. it only took me minutes to think about it. it will take me hours over my lifetime to dispose of trash.

[angelatc]

but the research states otherwise, if only I had a google link for you.. then you can move on to your next excuse for me to debunk.
people don't like different looking creatures because of genetic memory.
people perform the most simple task based on immitation.

these things you can argue with me until the sun explodes, but the science is always on my side. only a handful of people actually think. and a portion of those people just think they think.


You can't debunk my theory. At best, my theory is an alternate theory. Science clearly says that a wadded up paper is more likely to go into the can, so science clearly is on my side.


people who have political positions they feel emotionally attached too can't really make for good character witnesses, and those who denounce the scientific method have just held up a sign that reads "look at me, i'm retarded" lizard people r 4 realz/

You should really read what you just wrote, and really think hard about applying it to your own belief system in this instance.

Science is physics, chemistry, biology. Sociology and psychology are grant generating machines.

[torchbearer]

Science is chemistry and biology. Sociology and psychology are grant generating machines.

and these lines shows your ignorance. 99% of every company in our market uses a bureaucratic structure= Weber. (Vay-ber) sociologist.
suicide counciling = Durkheim

Objects and things - robert merton


the criminal revolving door of prison- sociologist

ineffectiveness of the drug war or adult approach to prohibition = sociologist

understanding that all humans are one race= sociology (though it was the earliest sociologist(before the term was coined) that created skin distinctions in race.)

I know from post before that you believe science to be unreliable. But that is like saying i don't believe in gravity. just saying so, doesn't make it so.
and yes, there are sociologist who just live off of fake projects and government money. note- i haven't quoted any of their opinions.

so, now all you have left are the facts in your face. to live without inner dissonance, or just pretend you didn't hear them. you will sleep alot better.

[angelatc]

and these lines shows your ignorance. 99% of every company in our market uses a bureaucratic structure= Weber. (Vay-ber) sociologist.
suicide counciling = Durkheim

That's why people who have been counseled never commit suicide?





the criminal revolving door of prison- sociologist That's why nobody ever goes to prison twice.


ineffectiveness of the drug war or adult approach to prohibition = sociologist

Yes, everybody agrees on these issues. And economics has absolutely nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:



understanding that all humans are one race= sociology (though it was the earlist sociologist(before the term was coined) that created skin distinctions in race.)

I know from post before that you believe science to be unreliable. But that is like saying i don't believe in gravity. just saying so, doesn't make it so.
and yes, there are sociologist who just live off of fake projects and government money. note- i haven't quoted any of their opinions.

so, now all you have left are the facts in your face. to live without inner dissonance, just pretend you didn't hear them. you will sleep alot better.


I believe real science is very reliable. If I mix blue and yellow, I get green. That's science.

It's hard to believe you didn't win an election with all this extensive "science" at your disposal.

[torchbearer]

That's why people who have been counseled never commit suicide?


That's why nobody ever goes to prison twice.


Yes, everybody agrees on these issues. And economics has absolutely nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:




I believe real science is very reliable. If I mix blue and yellow, I get green. That's science.

It's hard to believe you didn't win an election with all this extensive "science" at your disposal.


I don't think you are understanding. which isn't a surprise.
sociology takes a picture of something that has happened. it can't do anything else.
it can show that companies not using a bureaucratic structure doesn't succeed.
it can show prohibition's fail.
it can show government driven revitalization fails.
All sociology can show is what is happening after it just happened. the lesson to learn is not to repeat.
Weber came about in the time of Marx. He realized marx's over-simplifaction of individuals and expand the thought into a more complex theory.
You dont' even realize how much of your business world is shaped by sociologist. and here you are mocking them. which, of course, makes as much sense as the brainless talking heads making fun of Ron Paul.
You don't understand the subject, you got beat down in the debate because you lack any facts, so last resort is to try and dismiss the whole science.
once again, you will have to try again because that shit won't work on me.
I'm assuming you get your practice in on debating lemmings. This is one topic that few can match me on.
I'm looking for someone to actually post contrary research so i can look into it.
but there is no contrary research...

[raiha]

Great article. It's true. Xenophobia is inate. But can we not work against our more base instincts and try and evolve into something more worthwhile?

"Man's Search For Meaning" by Victor Frankl (who wrote of his experiences in Auschwitz) illustrates that humans are at different stages of development. Most of us have not even reached the stage of humanity yet. We are just human forms containing donkey consciousness.
Sorry to sound rude, but IMHO, USA is very much more xenophobic than most of the rest of the world and i suspect it is because US is so Americocentric.
It may date back to Puritans' fantasies about going to the Promised Land. I'm bewildered by it.

[BlackTerrel]

Sorry to sound rude, but IMHO, USA is very much more xenophobic than most of the rest of the world and i suspect it is because US is so Americocentric.
It may date back to Puritans' fantasies about going to the Promised Land. I'm bewildered by it.

Based on what? My experience is the exact opposite. At least when it comes to Europe and South America.

Admittedly my experience is very anecdotal.

[orenbus]

Can't believe i read through this entire thread and most of it consisting of people arguing about how best to dispose of paper in the garbage and why? The entire thread I'm reading I wanted to scream out loud "you are both right!" and "you are both wrong!".

Much like most of this thread, the examples used must be considered in the context of the subject being discussed. Not sure why context never came up, perhaps because the people involved in the discussion just like to debate so it's more fun to just argue with each other and never really try to understand the other side, or just ignore the other side all together. Both sides declaring the others lack of understanding, mental capacity, or just generally being thick, but never really trying to look at it from the other perspective. The same can be said about the topics prior to the discussion on paper disposal, context is king and it can be so easily lost at the cost of trying to prove a point.

I would say it was entertaining, but after a while it started to become sort of sad. There are better ways to use ones time, but I guess if it's something you enjoy then who am I to stand in your way.

So with that, on with the great paper debate! ;)

[torchbearer]

Can't believe i read through this entire thread and most of it consisting of people arguing about how best to dispose of paper in the garbage and why? The entire thread I'm reading I wanted to scream out loud "you are both right!" and "you are both wrong!".

Much like most of this thread, the examples used must be considered in the context of the subject being discussed. Not sure why context never came up, perhaps because the people involved in the discussion just like to debate so it's more fun to just argue with each other and never really try to understand the other side, or just ignore the other side all together. Both sides declaring the others lack of understanding, mental capacity, or just generally being thick, but never really trying to look at it from the other perspective. The same can be said about the topics prior to the discussion on paper disposal, context is king and it can be so easily lost at the cost of trying to prove a point.

I would say it was entertaining, but after a while it started to become sort of sad. There are better ways to use ones time, but I guess if it's something you enjoy then who am I to stand in your way.

So with that, on with the great paper debate! ;)

the most important part of the thread is the first post.

[torchbearer]

Great article. It's true. Xenophobia is inate. But can we not work against our more base instincts and try and evolve into something more worthwhile?

"Man's Search For Meaning" by Victor Frankl (who wrote of his experiences in Auschwitz) illustrates that humans are at different stages of development. Most of us have not even reached the stage of humanity yet. We are just human forms containing donkey consciousness.
Sorry to sound rude, but IMHO, USA is very much more xenophobic than most of the rest of the world and i suspect it is because US is so Americocentric.
It may date back to Puritans' fantasies about going to the Promised Land. I'm bewildered by it.

sure, people move past their most basic instincts all the time. once you realize your nature, you can move past it.

[NoHero]

I agree with the OP's research on xenophobia. It doesn't mean that most people do not shrug off silly aversions based on physical differences. Most cases, feelings never metastisize or become harmful or even wrong. Seeing someone walking toward you on the street, maybe wearing gear from Mad Max, or wrestling's Animal and Hawk, might cause you to choose a route around them. This would not be completely illogical as that person may be crazy, but it is instinctive and the same thing as xenophobia. I think torchbearer is trying to say everyone should be aware of these ingrained parts of us or you may just start supporting any old fascist law or police state action to deal with your perceived threat. BTW, are any of you seeing the Arizona law as magical government action that will deport all the illegals at once? Can they not just come right back? The governor said they will not be profiling, will they just harrass whites and blacks as much as brown people to prove they do not profile? My guess is yes.

[NoHero]

Oh, and more freedom is the only way to solve the immigration "problem". Police states never solved anything. First legalize drugs to completely dismantle the cartels that corrupt politicians and just terrorize the populace making the people not only think they cannot change their country, but think they do not want to. Second, repeal NAFTA which has wrecked Mexican and American economies. Then you could get into maybe activism and fundraising to bring liberty ideas to Mexican politics somewhere down the road instead of disregarding constitutional rights and sitting behind a computer cheering or demanding government action.

[Ninja Homer]

over a lifetime it is. it only took me minutes to think about it. it will take me hours over my lifetime to dispose of trash.

Thanks, I think you've helped answer a question that I've had for quite a while.

I have the smallest possible garbage bin for $15/month and it gets picked up once a week. It's usually only half full, and some weeks I don't even bother taking it to the curb. I have the largest possible recycling bin, which is completely free (I could even get another one if I wanted, for free) and it gets taken every 2 weeks, and it's normally full. All my paper gets placed into the recycling bin.

Every week on trash day, I see people up and down the street with these massive garbage cans that cost $30/month and they're so full you can't close the lid on them. Some people have 2 of these giant bins, both overflowing, for a total of $60/month.

I wondered what the hell these people were throwing away every week that they have so much more trash than I do. Now I know... they're crumpling up their paper and throwing it away instead of placing it in recycling.

The people with 2 big bins spend $45 more a month than I do, which is $540 a year, which is $27000 over 50 years. If that $45/month was invested wisely, it'd be a nice chunk of retirement.

[torchbearer]

Thanks, I think you've helped answer a question that I've had for quite a while.

I have the smallest possible garbage bin for $15/month and it gets picked up once a week. It's usually only half full, and some weeks I don't even bother taking it to the curb. I have the largest possible recycling bin, which is completely free (I could even get another one if I wanted, for free) and it gets taken every 2 weeks, and it's normally full. All my paper gets placed into the recycling bin.

Every week on trash day, I see people up and down the street with these massive garbage cans that cost $30/month and they're so full you can't close the lid on them. Some people have 2 of these giant bins, both overflowing, for a total of $60/month.

I wondered what the hell these people were throwing away every week that they have so much more trash than I do. Now I know... they're crumpling up their paper and throwing it away instead of placing it in recycling.

The people with 2 big bins spend $45 more a month than I do, which is $540 a year, which is $27000 over 50 years. If that $45/month was invested wisely, it'd be a nice chunk of retirement.

waste not, want not.

[aravoth]

you can say that all you want, and if it helps you sleep at night- then just believe it.



I don't know how anyone can claim it's true at all. Most neurologists will admit they don't have a good understanding of the brain. Especially when some patients who have had a hemishperectomy end recovering completely with no loss in memory and only a slight limp. Doesn't happen with all patients, but for the people that recover what does that say about the brain?

[torchbearer]

I don't know how anyone can claim it's true at all. Most neurologists will admit they don't have a good understanding of the brain. Especially when some patients who have had a hemishperectomy end recovering completely with no loss in memory and only a slight limp. Doesn't happen with all patients, but for the people that recover what does that say about the brain?

the brain is a complex processor.
but this study wasn't even looking at the brain. it was looking at people with williams syndrome. it was determining what effects the lack of a certain gene had on people.
one of those effects was an inability to feel social anxiety or fear. they also found that it eliminated the ability of the person to distinguish dangerous social situation. They found the lack of the gene also preventing any racial bias. All of the above are actually linked. People's elevated anxiety around people who look different than them (root of racism) is a genetic memory.
The brain is a result of the genetics.

[Lord Xar]

what i'm pointing out is the very nature of xenophobia. its natural. something we are all born with as a genetic memory/instinct, that kept us alive throughout our evolution.

not an excuse for hating other people, but this explain why people may feel threatened by mexican's crossing the border when they don't feel the same about canadians.
one set of people looks similar, one does not.

Torch, get a brain.

WHEN the canadians come down in droves, in the tens of millions, overburdening out schools/hospitials, not assimiliating and speaking another language.. THEN we would have an issue with them too!

The tolerance we have towards "canadians", "asians" is because by and large, they assimilate - they do not see "america" as secondary to their homeland. They do not drain our social services like south americans do. I would give you links, but I am fairly certain your open border apologist mentality is rather cemented.

Instead of trying to educate others, perhaps you should try educating yourself first.

[Theocrat]

let's look at what i posted- a scientific experiment that shows genetics to a be link to racism. as in, the bear looks different than me, it may be a threat gene.
its is natural. something that has kept us alive. it doesn't make you a bad person, nor does it necesarily control your actions if you understand it is there and ignore the warning signals it gives you.
i'm speaking matter of fact.

Then all you're saying, to me, is that since it's natural, it's okay. If I cannot help my fear or hatred of foreigners (in this case, Mexicans or those of Latin descent) because of my "genetic predisposition," then it's okay for me to be a "xenophobe."

But then where do we draw the line? Is rape due to a genetic predisposition? Murder? Cannibalism? To me, your argument proves too much. It makes no one accountable for their own actions, reducing everything to mere genetic traits which some people (if anyone) may not be able to overcome.

[torchbearer]

Torch, get a brain.

WHEN the canadians come down in droves, in the tens of millions, overburdening out schools/hospitials, not assimiliating and speaking another language.. THEN we would have an issue with them too!

The tolerance we have towards "canadians", "asians" is because by and large, they assimilate - they do not see "america" as secondary to their homeland. They do not drain our social services like south americans do. I would give you links, but I am fairly certain your open border apologist mentality is rather cemented.

Instead of trying to educate others, perhaps you should try educating yourself first.

what does that have to do with williams syndrome?

[torchbearer]

Then all you're saying, to me, is that since it's natural, it's okay. If I cannot help my fear or hatred of foreigners (in this case, Mexicans or those of Latin descent) because of my "genetic predisposition," then it's okay for me to be a "xenophobe."

But then where do we draw the line? Is rape due to a genetic predisposition? Murder? Cannibalism? To me, your argument proves too much. It makes no one accountable for their own actions, reducing everything to mere genetic traits which some people (if anyone) may not be able to overcome.

people are complete idiots. really. even in this movement. there is no facepalm to express the facepalmness of the previous two post.
This research does not say every one of your actions is predetermined by your genes. it only stated that their is a gene that is connected to social anxiety/racism/etc. as in, if you don't have that gene, you don't have social anxiety/racism.
There is no character judgement involved. No one is saying this is a good or bad, or it makes hatred ok or whatever crap spews out of your mind. It really is simple.
the very fear that leads to racism and social anxiety is a genetic memory. a survival trait.

[The Patriot]

I love how people like to assign objective value to personal preferences like making grandiose statements that preferring the company of those you mentally find patterns with is evil. It is no different the sexual preference or preferring to associate with those of your own faith, and in none of those cases is it "immoral".

[The Patriot]

why? do you know of someone who means to harm the US? then keep that person out. not a whole "class" of people based on your fears. Your fears control you. It is what the government wants.

So the government wants closed borders? Why does the Obama administration than support Amnesty and mass immigration and oppose Arizona's immigration law? Seems like the powers that be are vested in importation of third worlders to secure elections and eliminate traditional western culture.

[aravoth]

It really is simple.
the very fear that leads to racism and social anxiety is a genetic memory. a survival trait.

Except that people do not have to act on this impulse. And if the Grand wizard of the KKK was raised by black parents he wouldn't give a shit about race either, no matter what his genetic coding said.

[low preference guy]

Except that people do not have to act on this impulse. And if the Grand wizard of the KKK was raised by black parents he wouldn't give a shit about race either, no matter what his genetic coding said.

Agreed!

This "study" is at best is a lame excuse for racism.

My genes made me do it!!!!!!

[torchbearer]

Except that people do not have to act on this impulse. And if the Grand wizard of the KKK was raised by black parents he wouldn't give a shit about race either, no matter what his genetic coding said.

it is the fear of something different. if he was raised by black people, he wouldn't see them as different.
i really don't understand why people aren't understanding this information.
think of racism as a side effect of fear.

[torchbearer]

Agreed!

This "study" is at best is a lame excuse for racism.

My genes made me do it!!!!!!

again, another person who doesn't understand.
have any of you read this study yet? it isn't even hinting at racism being a uncontrolled natural urge that people just can't help.
it is saying they found the gene that leads to the fear that causes people to fear/mistrust/think negative of creatures that look different than they do.
you people can't be this fucking stupid. i'm assuming none of you have taken the time to read.

[low preference guy]

it is the fear of something different. if he was raised by black people, he wouldn't see them as different.
i really don't understand why people aren't understanding this information.
think of racism as a side effect of fear.

Did you know that when the Europeans came to America, the natives in some areas believed they were something like angels, because of their light skin? They received people of another race eagerly! How is that consistent with your "study"?

[torchbearer]

Did you know that when the Europeans came to America, the natives in some areas believed they were something like angels, because of their light skin? They received them eagerly! How is that consistent with your "study"?

they had a belief that pale skin people were super-human. people with futuristic technology that came from the endless sea.
though when the europeans saw the red skins and black skins.. they knew they weren't gods. they were primitive.
but that is why early explorers labeled these humans with different skin color as completely different races.

edit: though i wasn't there, obviously, i would assume that there was fear present in the first meetings.

[low preference guy]

they had a belief that pale skin people were super-human. people with futuristic technology that came from the endless sea.
though when the europeans saw the red skins and black skins.. they knew they weren't gods. they were primitive.
but that is why early explorers labeled these humans with different skin color as completely different races.

edit: though i wasn't there, obviously, i would assume that there was fear present in the first meetings.

But you claimed


it is the fear of something different.

Since these natives were not scared of the Europeans, that proves your statement to be false.

EDIT: Read your edit too late. Still don't buy it. It's nonsensical. You might be "afraid" for a few seconds when you don't know what it is. But after taking an hour or two to realize they are actually humans, any fear of bigotry is plain freely chosen racism.

[torchbearer]

But you claimed



Since these natives were not scared of the Europeans, that proves your statement to be false.

and you know there was no fear from the natives?
i'm certain their would have been.

Its like, lets make an argument based on a false assumption. "natives here had absolutely no fear of the strangers taking over their land- so now prove fear of something different is innate."
well, your first assumption of no fear is incorrect.

[low preference guy]

and you know there was no fear from the natives?
i'm certain their would have been.

Its like, lets make an argument based on a false assumption. "natives here had absolutely no fear of the strangers taking over their land- so now prove fear of something different is innate."
well, your first assumption of no fear is incorrect.

Receiving with open arms people you fear seems pretty contradictory. The evidence suggest the natives didn't fear them.

[aravoth]

it is the fear of something different. if he was raised by black people, he wouldn't see them as different.
i really don't understand why people aren't understanding this information.
think of racism as a side effect of fear.

So what you are saying is that the environment aggravates an existing genetic condition?

[torchbearer]

So what you are saying is that the environment aggravates an existing genetic condition?

the genetics is just a predisposition. you don't have to actively think "that guy in the corner with the machette and hockey mask might be dangerous", you body automatically produces the chemicals of fear when your eyes see Jason in the corner.

In early human tribes, i'd imagine that people who didn't have that fear didn't usually survive to breed.

[torchbearer]

Receiving with open arms people you fear seems pretty contradictory. The evidence suggest the natives didn't fear them.

how many tribes and in what order did the colonist encounter them?

[dannno]

No,...meaning that there's a proper and legal way to become a resident of any country.

,..and take your leftist crap to some place where it's appropriate,...like Democratic Underground.

torch has a very principled, limited govt. position on this issue:


if travel is not an individual right, then you are stuck at your home until you get permission from daddy government.


Edit: Oh wow I had this window opened from last night this thread has gone places.

[Danke]

,..and take your leftist crap to some place where it's appropriate,...like democratic underground.


being a libertarian doesn't mean being stupid.

people like you are the reason that people in the liberty movement have to constantly fight off the "loon" label.

Do us all a favor and stifle your wacky psuedo science.

Tones?

[torchbearer]

Edit: Oh wow I had this window opened from last night this thread has gone places.

buckle up it is a long ride.

[aravoth]

the genetics is just a predisposition. you don't have to actively think "that guy in the corner with the machette and hockey mask might be dangerous", you body automatically produces the chemicals of fear when your eyes see Jason in the corner.

In early human tribes, i'd imagine that people who didn't have that fear didn't usually survive to breed.

I see your point.

[torchbearer]

I see your point.

and its good knowledge to have to understand why you feel anxiety/fear in different situation. it doesn't mean you are predetermined to act like a racist prick. it just means that the fear is apart of your nature.

[aravoth]

and its good knowledge to have to understand why you feel anxiety/fear in different situation. it doesn't mean you are predetermined to act like a racist prick. it just means that the fear is apart of your nature.

Trust me I understand this. My son was born with congenital insensitivity to pain. Meaning he doesn't feel pain at all. Because of that, he is at this point in time, absolutely fearless. Without pain sensation, or the fear of getting injured, the situations he gets himself into, even at his young age, are unbelievable.

[torchbearer]

this is a repost of the livescience article in post 5:

Never has a human population been found that has no racial stereotypes. Not in other cultures or far-flung countries. Nor among tiny tots or people with various psychological conditions.

Until now.

Children with Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that makes them lack normal social anxiety, have no racial biases. They do, however, traffic in gender stereotypes, said study researcher Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg of the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

Normally, children show clear preferences for their own ethnic group by the age of three, if not sooner, other research has shown.

And, indeed, the children in this study without Williams syndrome reliably assigned good traits, such as friendliness, to pictures of people the same race as themselves. When asked something negative, such as "which is the naughty boy," they overwhelmingly pointed to the other race.

Children with Williams syndrome, however, were equally likely to point to the white or black child as naughty or friendly.

While this study was done with white children, other research has shown that blacks and people of other races also think more highly of their own, Meyer-Lindenberg told LiveScience.

Williams syndrome is caused by a gene deletion known to affect the brain as well as other organs. As a result, people with Williams syndrome are "hypersocial," Meyer-Lindenberg told . They do not experience the jitters and inhibitions the rest of us feel.

"The whole concept [of social anxiety] would be foreign to them," he said.

They will put themselves at great peril to help someone and despite their skills at empathy, are unable to process social danger signals. As a result, they are at increased risk for rape and physical attack.

Nature or nurture?

While the first human population to demonstrate race-neutrality is missing critical genes, "we are not saying that this is all biologically-based and you can't do anything about it," Meyer-Lindenberg said.

"Just because there is a genetic way to knock the system out, does not mean the system itself is 100 percent genetic," he said.

The study does show, however, that racism requires social fear. "If social fear was culturally reduced, racial stereotypes could also be reduced," Meyer-Lindenberg said.

Despite their lack of racial bias, children with Williams syndrome hold gender stereotypes just as strongly as normal children, the study found. That is, 99 percent of the 40 children studied pointed to pictures of girls when asked who played with dolls and chose boys when asked, say, who likes toy cars.

The fact that Williams syndrome kids think of men and women differently, but not blacks and whites, shows that sex stereotypes are not caused by social anxiety, Meyer-Lindenberg said.

This may be because we learn about gender within "safe" home environments, while a different race is usually a sign of someone outside our immediate kin. (Studies to test this explanation, such as with racially-mixed families, have not yet been done.)

Racial biases are likely rooted in a general fear of others, while gender stereotypes may arise from sweeping generalizations, Meyer-Lindenberg said. "You watch mother make the meals, so you generalize this to everyone female."

In their heads

Due to the present study, we now know that "gender and race are processed by different brain mechanisms," Meyer-Lindenberg said, although those involved in gender are less understood.

Previous work has shown that in the brains of people with Williams syndrome, the amygdala — the emotional seat of the brain — fails to respond to social threats. While the amygdala itself is functionally normal, it is misguided by the pre-frontal cortex — the executive of the brain — to block all social anxiety.

This system is now thought to underlie racism, but it seems uninvolved in the formation of sex stereotypes.

Meyer-Lindenberg and colleagues are now using brain imaging to get a clearer picture of how racism and sexism are differentiated in the brain. The present study was published in the journal Current Biology.

in an effort to relieve the facepalms in the future.