Psychology
By overwhelming demand.
Date: February 19, 2010
Categories: Life, The Universe
Comments RSS TrackBack 26 comments
-
1
Enceladus
in February 19th, 2010 @ 06:57Ooh! Yay!
What do people think about discussing why people do altruistic actions? Why do we help people with no relation to us, just because they are humans? Religion? Survival as a species (I doubt that)? What are your thoughts on this?
0
0
-
2
Piggy
in February 19th, 2010 @ 07:281- I think it’s sort of an innate instinct, based originally on survival as a species. Obviously altruism is no longer needed to continue the species, but it’s still embedded in our brains to help people out. That’s my theory, anyway.
0
0
-
3
speller73
in February 19th, 2010 @ 10:47Oh, we studied this in my biology class last semester… *tries to remember* I think it is sort of survival of the species… A lot of altruistic behavior in nature, at least, is kin selection (helping your family), because then they pass on the same genes. There’s also sort of the “They owe you a favor” idea…
0
0
-
4
Sunrunner Bramblewood
in February 19th, 2010 @ 14:34I’m not sure…probably something to do with sympathy or empathy.
0
0
-
5
SudoRandom
in February 19th, 2010 @ 15:11Sunrunner- But he’s more asking why we have sympathy and empathy.
Enceladus- I agree with Piggy. Although we no longer need it for the survival of our species, it’s embedded in our brains, the same way that our lust for salt and fat is.
0
0
-
6
Jadestone
in February 19th, 2010 @ 15:58I read a few studies where they had located a gene for empathy, or were very close to doing so. I think I talked about it somewhere on MB but I don’t really recall where.
0
0
-
7
vanillabean3.141
in February 19th, 2010 @ 21:45Jadestone–I believe it was Hot Topics, but I may be wrong.
Maybe the reason for altruism is that when you do something very kind for someone else, it’s likely they’ll reciprocate in some way, kind of what speller73 said. But when you give your life for someone, it’s probably not for the sake of their genes and they can’t really return the favor and save your life, so….
I’m sure many people in one particular class of mine have anatidaephobia (fear of being watched by ducks). Our teacher has this wooden duck, and the head…can face in many directions, let’s say. It’s creepy. Phobias are fun to study. Perhaps the most ironic is Macroxenoglossophobia, fear of long words.
Thank you so much GAPAs!!!
0
0
-
7.1
SudoRandom
in February 20th, 2010 @ 04:54Oh no, not fear of long words. That’s Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. Macroxenoglossophobia is fear of long strange words. Don’t we all love the people who name these things?
0
0
-
7.1.1
vanillabean3.141
in February 20th, 2010 @ 20:03Oh yes we do. We wants to send them flowers.
0
0
-
8
Bobby
in February 19th, 2010 @ 23:11Do you think that guilt, shame, etc. are natural emotions, or are they solely a byproduct of our cultural influences?
0
0
-
8.1
Elias Eiholzer-Silver
in February 20th, 2010 @ 09:00All emotions are traceable to neurological causes.
0
0
-
8.2
-*CTN*-
in February 26th, 2010 @ 23:20Probably natural…
0
0
-
9
Pax the Hamster
in February 20th, 2010 @ 09:38I don’t know if this is actually true or not (because my therapist is kind of wacky….) but my therapist says that your emotions are ingrained from when you’re in the womb. So, depending on what sort of pregnancy your mom has, that will be your predominant emotion (which means that my mom had a quite depressed pregnancy). But of course, she will probably have experienced all sorts of feelings, even if they aren’t predominant, so we all have the same feelings.
0
0
-
9.1
Enceladus
in February 20th, 2010 @ 10:20I read a book. It included something like that in it… except it was a book about pseudoscience and parapsychology. So I really don’t think that’s true.
My personal opinion is that our train of thought that leads to altruism is that their life is good, and a little bit of sacrifice to make other lives much better is worth it because they are conscious beings with feelings, hopes, and fears. But, giving all for other people is still something I haven’t figured out yet. I’m guessing it’s for the greater good, but what about when it’s one person?
0
0
-
10
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in February 20th, 2010 @ 12:56On altruism: turn the question around, do you think human society could have developed without a dose of altruism in the genetic pool? Could we have made it far enough to have the leisure to stop and think about it? If acts of altruism require deliberate thought, how do we account for altruistic (or proto-altruistic, if you prefer) behaviors in nonhumans?
0
0
-
11
Shadowkat
in February 24th, 2010 @ 11:12I think that, without some amount of altruism, human beings would probably have died out thousands of years ago, because if one person couldn’t get, say, food, or something, another person wouldn’t necessarily have given it to them, and they would have died. Once they did give it to them, though, it created this bond between the two, and they worked together…but I’m not really sure, I suppose. It’s hard to conceptualize that kind of thing, because altruism is such an inherent trait in most of us. I think. Lol.
0
0
-
12
Kittymine, OSW, with various characters on BA
in February 24th, 2010 @ 20:5910 – Well humans, very technically are animals – we’re mammals. If you say that altruism was required for survival, then it follows that animals should have that same instinct. They want to survive on this earth as well.
0
0
-
13
starr
in March 7th, 2010 @ 11:52I would have continued this on the Random Thread, but I clicked on Piggy’s link to this thread and thought it would be a better place to discuss my workings of the brain. Well, here goes.
I’m not really sure how my brain works. Actually, normally it doesn’t. But on the occasion that it does, I don’t really ever think about having different levels, but instead mental images for different things. For example, whenever I hear a certain age, I associate it with the image in my mind. For example, ages 1 to about 5 or so are pictured on one level, and 7-9 are on another, and then 10 is sort of higher up on this ledge. 11 and 12 are together, and then all the teens continue up until 20. It’s really hard to describe, but I almost always associate the same images with the same groupings of works.
I can’t really say that my mind is like a filing cabinet, but when I’m multitasking I sort of have this thing that’s almost like a scroll, and its like I’m flipping through different channels. I focus on one thing, and then another, another, etc. Does anybody do the same? Or is this all just mish mash that doesn’t make any sense?
0
0
-
13.1
-*CTN*-
in March 8th, 2010 @ 19:32Makes sense. Even though I don’t quite think that way…
I don’t really multitask. It’s easier to think of one thing at a time, and then move on to something else. Except that my mind wanders too much, which leads to not much getting done…
0
0
-
14
Piggy
in May 18th, 2010 @ 20:54Hurm, yeah, this thread did fail, as the GAPAs predicted. Alas.
Anyway, and I’m not sure why I’m posting this, but I’ve been doing a lot of mental self-analysis lately, figuring out how I work, and I’ve come to the conclusion and firm belief that I have a thing called schizoid personality disorder. I can’t recall exactly what led me to this conclusion in the first place, but over the past few months I’ve grown certain that I have it. What it is, copied from the DSM-IV-TR:
A pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings, beginning by early adulthood (age eighteen or older) and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
2. almost always chooses solitary activities
3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
5. lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectI’ve judged myself to have five of these characteristics fully and the other two partly. I’ve read dozens, maybe a hundred, of analyses of SPD, I’ve talked to people who have been officially diagnosed, I’ve analyzed my psychological life from the earliest points I can remember, I’ve qualified, I’ve scrutinized, I’ve skepticized. All my research points to schizoid personality disorder. What effects do this analysis and pseudodiagnosis bring? Nothing other than the fact that I understand myself better, but that’s definitely something.
I’ve mentioned elsewhere on the ‘Blog that I don’t have any friends. This is true. I find people to be emotional wrecking balls and intrusive parasites, for the most part. I have numerous acquaintances in school from whom I gain entertainment, but no confidants whatsoever. This will sound cold or even inhuman to some people, but if any of these acquaintances were to die, I wouldn’t really care. I don’t feel any connection to either of my parents. I’m stonefaced around other people, showing, at the most extreme, mild amusement. Being praised, having attention on myself is torturous, though no one else would be able to tell. Basically, I socialize with myself instead of others. After all, is there any better company than oneself?
So that’s part of my story. Now to address the inevitable responses, most of which will be, “Oh, you’re just depressed,” “It’s hormones,” “It’s Münchausen syndrome or hypochondria,” “You’ll grow out of it; everyone goes through a process of self-discovery when they’re a teenager,” and, “Maybe you could talk to a counselor if you’re worried about it.” I fully understand all these complaints, and I have no way of convincing anyone that they’re incorrect, so I won’t try. I’ve been weighing this since January, and I’ve been becoming more and more sure of it since then. The evidence all adds up in my mind. I won’t talk to my parents/teacher/counselor/etc., which should be apparent from the whole “schizoid personality disorder” thing. Talking to people about these matters is extremely unnatural and uncomfortable, and basically impossible. (With the strange exception of the internet, which I find to be an extremely liberating place to discuss various matters which I would never discuss face-to-face with anyone.)
And that’s all I have to say about that.
0
0
-
14.1
bookgirl_me
in May 19th, 2010 @ 10:26But other people talk back so nicely!I don’t know what to say, but if that’s the way you feel… sure. I’ve felt similar sometimes, but usually when I was very depressed. True, people are wrecking balls – ironically, one of the people I trusted the most, loved like a brother and who was almost like a first boyfriend to me was also the first person to tell me I was a worthless piece of “” . Ah, the joy of relationships.
Still, other people …they change your life, to put it simply. But if you want to believe that you’re schizoid, I can respect that. I don’t understand why you’d want to diagnose yourself with a psychological disorder, but fine. What I don’t understand is the following: disorder = sickness, sickness = go to a doctor/headshrinker and get yourself fixed up. So you’re just going to accept that and keep going on without any people in your life? It just seems… boring. Harsh. Defeatist. Okay, I better shut up before I get even more aggressive.
0
0
-
14.1.1
Piggy
in May 19th, 2010 @ 16:42You’re right, disorder = sickness, etc. But it’s somewhat different with things like this; this is my personality, whether it’s like most people’s or not. I’m fine with it, myself. I see no reason to change my personality to “fit in” with other people. Yeah. It’s complicated.
0
0
-
14.2
Cat's Eye
in May 19th, 2010 @ 11:29Hm. Well, condolences (though you may not appreciate them) for not being able to enjoy society the way those without your disorder do. I, of course, hope you are mistaken, but would accept it if you were not. I agree with bookgirl_me on this one-other people do change your life, some for the better, some for the worse. Outside influences have not always made me happier, but for the most part they have made me grow more as a person. Still, I can understand the point of view that to be alone is more fulfilling if one cannot relate to others, as I’ve definitely been there before.
So… yeah.
0
0
-
15
Jadestone
in May 19th, 2010 @ 17:25No offense and all Piggy, but I’d be careful with self-diagnosis (as I’ve said to you before). Nearly all that applies to me as well, and a few years ago would have applied nearly exactly.
Having your personality currently fit this is one thing, having the disorder is another. There’s a difference between it and just being an introverted person who doesn’t relate well to other people. I know people don’t like to be told “what you’re feeling is normal” but most of it’s something I’ve gone through/experienced and heard other people say as well.
0
0
-
15.1
Piggy
in May 19th, 2010 @ 19:10I understand the difference between the normal range of personalities and the area which is classified as a “disorder”. Technically, by the book, I have schizoid personality disorder. My thorough self-analysis backs up this conclusion. People officially diagnosed with the disorder have agreed that I have it as well. This hasn’t been a short-term thing for me, either.
0
0
-
16
Gimanator
in November 17th, 2010 @ 23:47Reposted from the random thread, in an attempt to keep thread order, and also make a cheap grab at trying to pull more people into the argument.
~~
For the first section, about the theory, you seem to be making the assumption that the subconscious is completely derived from the society. I’m trying to present this as a natural impulse, that affects society, not one that is determined by it. I also didn’t say that failure to dominate would result in genetically inferior offspring. It’s not a matter of who’s superior to whom in the society and how that will turn out, it’s how people are naturally geared to think based off of instinct.
Now, on to part two. To try and prove my point, let’s use an example. Let us say that there is a group of educated people, however with no previous influence from society. This group of people, should they be put into a miniature government commune, could not sustain themselves. None would be willing to be fully dedicated and want the government, because the only way they could is if society explained to them why it would work especially by implanting a set of ethics in them. Without our modern society’s set of ethics, they would have no motivation, thus, In an hypothetical world, clean slate people couldn’t sustain that society, because they would be running off of natural instinct.
Next, a set of morals is because of this society of people who want to dominate. Let’s look at it this way: People want control, thus they look to the best way of control, thus they turn to the creation of governments and morals to a)keep the masses pacified and b)establish the best way to perpetuate what they’ve won. Did you just pull your morals from thinking about what would ideally work? I doubt it, because your daily life and history is what’s giving you example of what works and what doesn’t. Thus, the people and their instincts around you influence what you determine to be good morals. (Feel free to tell me that I’m plain wrong on this assumption.)
P.S. Wouldn’t a society like that not address specific needs, and not make the individual not feel like an individual, and wouldn’t that, creating crises of identity, along with other individual-specific problems, lead to depression and inefficiency?
0
0
