“…should have written …”
Ahhhhh! A knife to the heart!
Actually, Wilson is so good that I can read his books without envy.
Nick
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 2:42 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] vol 98 issue 22
Interesting book. One you should have written?
-J.
Sent from Android
Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> hat geschrieben:
Peggy, Kim, n all,
One of the features of evolutionary psychology that I like is that it is less likely to see non-normative variations in psychological organization as diseases. Rather, it tends to see them as potential adaptations to different selection pressures. David Sloan Wilson in his Darwin’s Cathedral holds the view that the human predilection to religion is an adaptation that fosters subjugation of individual interests to those of the group. In short, it works just because it is irrational (given that “reason” is deployed to determine an individual’s best course of action for himself and his own genealogy).
Nick
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of peggy miller
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 1:17 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] vol 98 issue 22
My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were non-religious.)
The response was --- "Well, good question. The type of question we need to keep asking."
Studying psychology did not enhance my belief in the science. I did find that developmental psychology -- studying neurons, child development, cognitive behavior and such seemed to have more reliable studies and results.
Have a great day!
Peggy Miller
--
Peggy Miller, owner/OEO
Highland Winds
wix.com/peggymiller/highlandwinds
Shop is at 1520 S. 7th St. W. (Just off Russell, four blocks from Good Food Store)
Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings
406-541-7577 (home/office/shop)
Shop Hours: Tues/Wed: 12-4
Thurs: 3-7 pm
Fri-Sat: 10 am -2pm
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |