The Middle East is full of American military bases and are being served by NATO wannabees too . It seems that the US wants to have permanent military bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan and they put a puppy government to try and give some legitimacy to their tyrant colonialism . Oil, resources, military bases and Israel are the main forces behind the US sad intervention in the Middle East .
Alas Obama is following the dark, tyrant steps of his Godfather G.W. Bush .

JB,


I think I understand what you’re saying, and like you there are times I see information presented and I just throw up my hands and say “so?”. Dr. Andy did not attempt to give an answer/solution to the information he presented. He was simply using a forum from which to present the findings of his study. We can not presume to take this information as truth and then just jump into action.

Scientists use all manner of public forums for presenting their ideas. This is a good thing because it gives various groups from all levels of society an opportunity to engage their minds, to consider evidence of one possible theory. The venue Dr. Andy chose was one he felt comfortable in. He knew that his ideas would be received with more open minds specifically because there are no particular religious beliefs and consider where the majority of his supporting evidence is coming from, open minds are necessary.

I feel that he was also making a very specific point which was lost in the larger conversation about gender/sex and violence, which is:

Male primates of at least two species are known to form groups which set off with the deliberate intention of finding an individual to assault and kill. This isn't about the relative violence of lone men vs lone women, only groups of men. And that human groups (including the military) make use of these genetic tendencies.

I feel that many in the crowd confused this idea with the idea that 'men, individually, are inherently more violent than women'.

Wux - you and I often have common ideas. Yesterday when I was considering the post in which I gave my opinion, about replacing the extremist religious governments, I thought about all the many ways this could happen. I even considered the fact that the Middle East is experiencing today what the Early Modern Europe expereinced for hundreds of years.

I agree with a lot of what you say but rather than comment on it I would like to redirect this thread back to it's original topic.

Bushi said he was outlining the lecture so that we can all have the same point of reference. What we were meant to discuss was the theory which Dr. Andy presented and his supporting evidence.

So for now I will refrain from further discusssion about the demise of certain governments.

Come on Bushi - you can do it.

The US and NATO are still using force and taking sovereign nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan .
Of course Iraq and Afghanistan are COLONIES .
The Middle East problems have NOTHING to do with religions but it is the neo colonialism and the neo imperialism .
How did you come to this opinion and based on what exactly ???!!!.

Massage wrote


Very good point. When I saw this information presented my first thought was - I wonder if we could make comparitive studies using gangs. I did some research on gangs for one of my classes and I see many links between the suicide bombers and gang mentality. While both groups are influenced by different data, the construction of the data is similar. What this suggests is that there may be a specific pathway which stimulates violent tendencies. If specific factors could be related to that pathway indicating it was selected to serve as a survival mechanism, then Dr. Andy may have found a new gene.

Oh I hit submit too soon so I have to edit to add this part. By comparing gangs and bombers I mention the possibility of a specific pathway. Part of this pathway may have to involve team or group influence. It may be as simple as follow the leader or it may involve some kind of complex interactions which stimulate or open the pathway. I know this all very vague but at the moment it is hypothesis in the works.

Red, yes, the lecture also got me thinking that the development of gangs in certain circumstances is not only genetically influenced, but specifically influenced by the (presumed) 'band of brothers' genetic factors. I wonder (baselessly) if team sports may be a way that these same genetic inclinations are re-directed.

Even if there is credence to this idea, it is still a matter of interplay of genetics and other factors - such as systems of memes. A group of males don't spontaneously form a violent gang - but if the capacity is exploited by a system of ideas (and yes, Sky, the verb exploit, like hijack, can carry meaning even when there is no 'conscious entity' involved), then this can help the propagation of those ideas. This could hold for gang culture, military culture, religion....

I don't know much about genetics, but would be surprised if there is a 'join a group of males and do violence' gene, I thought the links between genetics and behaviors tended to have a large number of genes involved. I welcome the opportunity to learn, if anyone knows.

tohyup, my apologies for the misunderstanding (on my part that is)I totally understand now that you had given me the opportunity to change what I had claimed but did not understand your implication. Iraq is not our colony - HOWEVER - I was quite wrong in the claim I made about "modern powerful nations".

Colonization is obviously not above any nation even the U.S.
Afghanistan is a sovereign nation but I expect if economic factors in the Middle East allowed it - any of those states would be up for grabs.

What I was actually trying to infer is that most countries today would not independently wage war on another thriving nation. There are too many alliance issues and war is expensive and the cost in lives is shameful. But no matter what I actually meant to say, it is still a claim that is based on opinion and "we the people" obviously have very little control over what our President does, even Congress is not even given truthful insight when asked to vote on various Administration policies.

At any rate I stand corrected, perhaps wishful thinking got the better of me.



I took an extreme view and I admit I was wrong. I will not admit that the Middle East has no problems realted to religion. There is too much documented evidence that religion is an extremely divisive force throughout the Middle East. But unless our homeland were invaded by any of those forces I would not support our invasion in those countries. I would support any forceful assistence to any country experiencing systematic genocide - just figued I finish my opinion, which by they way IS TOTALLY

I'm certainly no expert in genetics. However, I have taken courses on genetics, cell-biology, and organic chemistry. Even some courses that specifically address the atomic and molecular mechanisms of the evolutionary processes.

I am a completely and firm "believer" in evolution. I am totally convinced that human bodies and brains have indeed been 'created' via the process of evolution.

However, this doesn't automatically implies "atheism". On the contrary this process actually fits in quite well with the Eastern Mystical spiritual notions of reincarnation and 'karma'. So evolution does not "support" atheism over spirituality. Evolution may indeed conflict with the Mediterranean pictures of God, but those pictures don't speak for all spiritualists.

That's my number one point. Evolution does not automatically imply atheism.

I would also like to address the following in some depth:



That most certainly is the current 'scientific' view. In fact, behaviors are affected in very complex ways that go far beyond genes. It has been shown that behavior (as well as the physical development of the brain) has much to do with environmental influences as well. Especially as a fetus is developing within the womb. But even after birth, external influences continue to have an affect on how a persona will develop.

I have recently (within the past year) watched the following three courses that I highly recommend:

Biology and Human Behavior: The Neurological Origins of Individuality, 2nd Edition
By Professor Robert Sapolsky, Stanford University

Biological Anthropology: An Evolutionary Perspective
By Professor Barbara J. King, The College of William and Mary

Science of Self (all about the human genome)
By Professor Lee M. Silver, Princeton University

All these courses are from "The Teachings Company". Course outlines and descriptions can be found here:
www.teach12.com

The first course listed makes the best case for how complex human behavior truly is and how it is clearly related on many factors. Dr. Sapolsky suggests that scientists who point to a single gene (or even group of genes) as being responsible for a particular trait, are truly proposing a naive notion. He goes on to present many studies and examples that clearly show how environment and "nurture" are extremely powerful factors that can actually override genes.

So to just point to evolution and say, "We are predisposed by our genes" is truly a shallow point of view.

A better view would be to say that our genes provide many possibilities! That would be more accurate than to try to say that the give us 'predispositions'.

After all, if we can say of genes that they give us a "predisposition for violence" under certain conditions, then we can say with equal certainty that our genes also give us a "predisposition for love and peace" under certain conditions. But then the qualifier "under certain conditions", kind of negates the very idea that genes are responsible for anything!

It makes far more sense to simply say that our genetics allows us much diversity of behavior.

Dr. Andy also seems to presumes that we are "in essence" nothing more than a physical body that has somehow become consciously 'aware' that it exists. That's the premise of the non-spiritual view that he's working with. We are nothing more than our physical bodies.

However, there are many sound reasons to believe otherwise. I'm not going to go into those here, but the point is that if the true "essence" of our being is indeed spiritual, then the bodies that we "possess" would still need to be 'constructed' in some fashion. Just because we can recognize the details of how bodies are physically constructed doesn't mean that we can then conclude that no such thing as "spirit" exists and that we are driven solely by 'genes'. That's truly a stretch that requires the premise that we are nothing more than just physical bodies (a concept that I personally feel contains a myriad of its own problems and paradoxes that are equally enigmatic and unprovable as any notion of spirit).

So to point to evolution and say, "There is why we behave the way we do", is actually quite naïve. In fact, to someone who truly accepts reincarnation that would be laughable, because when we point to evolution all we are truly doing is pointing to our very own karma trail. So rather than saying that evolution is what caused us to be the way we are, we could just as easily say, "No. It's because we are the way we are that we have left that particular wake of evolution behind us"

It's like Dr. Andy is looking at the wake of a boat in the water and he says, "LOOK! I can prove how we got to where we are by looking at our wake, because our wake is what brought us to where we are!"

And the captain of the boat just rolls his eyes and says, "That's some really great work Mr. Scientist! I would have never thought of that. I thought I was creating that wake by steering the boat!"

No matter what science claims to know about genetics it is still only a drop in the buckett compared to what they don't know. Of the genetic material in our DNA we only have a clue about 10% of it, the other 90% is - well, still a mystery.

This is the reason why so many genetic theories depend on mainly on evidence of observation and correlation between datum. It makes it more interesting because we all get to be scientists by discussing ideas like this.

About your idea of sports - mmm. My first thought would be no becasue not all sports are contact sports and with the kind of violens we are discussin, some physical contact is required even if that contact is only an explosion. BUT THEN, I started thinking about Roman 'games' and the crowds of people who would gather to watch the grusome and deadly competition - which then made me think of the public executions and the crowds they drew.

ALL of the above, as you said, are group activities - obviously something transpires in groups and I wonder if certain urges toward violence are satisfied simply by watching (as a group)?

Yes, but we must also ask "What are those theories of corrlations based on?"

Talk about 'observation and correlation of datum", but who's doing the observing and correlating?

Through what "philosophical lens" are they viewing it?

Are they looking at it from the point of view that genes 'create' us?

Or are they seeing it from the point of view that genes a nothing more than a "wake" that had "been created" by us?

This is where the foundational premises come in.

Are we, today, unique and seperate beings that are merely 'victims' of the behavior of totally unrealted sepearate strangers who had existed before us?

Or are we in some way those same beings that have been "transformed" by our very own previous behavior?

Are we 'related to our mothers'?

If so, then are we not also related to the primates that came before us?

I think there's a real problem with an 'atheistic' view that presumes that we are created by genes, rather than the other way around.

Observations, correlations, and datum don't mean a damn thing if they are being observed and correlated with a presupposed vantage point that has the whole picture BACKWARDS.

(-----a little reminder of Political Economy--------)
...something we should really all be aware of ...

* * * US Military is the greatest employer in the world!!! It relieves the economy off of millions of Unemployment Insurance claimants (who would otherwise bilk the government off of millions of dollars...)

It feeds off the military action -- enemies around the world are the best indirect custommers! Besides, Military action keeps the problem of Overpopulation under control -- at either sideof the action! * * *

Overproduction of weapons is hurting the economy as a whole!Peaceful times are contre-productive to the military industry. With so much capital invested in producing stockpiles of weapons, it would be crazy wasting all that potential wealth!!!

Unfortunately, Russians threw the worst possible punch -- they dissolved the so-called Socialist Camp: one of the greatest of enemies has lost the Cold War! And now, they won't intervien even if the US would attack Viet Nam or Korea (even Cuba) -- and without the Soviets' support, those countries represent no challenge to the US military might!

Middle Eastern countries, on the other hand, represent quite an interest -- mainly because of the access to Oil. US needs cheep oil to keep the automobiles running, thus continuing car production -- making more profits for the industry... (despite the fact there already are far better modes of transportation -- both, ecologically and economically!) Though, those are only temporary remedies... The planet is heading towards a complete natural resources exhaustion -- another 2-3 decades!

Hopefully, Space exploration will soon bear some fruits that will reduce our dependancy upon the capital!
*** But until then, the market economy rules the world, and the rules of the market (i.e. brute force, speculation) continue driving forces of the market!!!

I'd like to again point out that it is not religion itself that is "force" behind the divisiveness. It is the belief in the religion that lends "force" to it. Without individuals who believe in it there would be no "devisive force".

For example, I understand the concept of destroying myself and a building full of other people for the purpose of attaining admittance to paradise. But I don't believe in that concept.

In otherwords, there is a crucial difference between "religion" and "belief in religion".

Eradicating belief in the religion is the only thing that can solve the problem.

Eradicating the religion itself cannot solve the problem. In fact, eradicating religion is part of the problem. (Islam trying to eradicate Christendom - just like Christendom trying to eliminate Islam during the Crusades. Which could make one wonder if maybe this is Christendom's karma. )

And since we don't want to join them, and they don't want to join us, it simply an "us.vs.them" situation where we do what we want and they do what they want.

But as I said before, the fundamental cause of the problem is aberrant thought processes, (aka lack of the use of "critical thinking skills")

What strikes me as odd is the fact that the focus has strayed away from the above focus. Evidence has been presented and presented well. No conclusions or 'solutions' does not indicate the worth or value of the information presented. Bickering over irrelevant definitions waste space and time.

What difference does it make whether the religion itself or the belief in the religion is the most important 'key'. One cannot exist without the other. Remove either and you will remove both. The insignificance only serves to muddle to focus.

Jeremy has mentioned and Di has also the idea of groupthink. It is the force behind a chanting crowd, patriotism, racial genocide, bi-partisanship, religious cults, etc. The underlying element in all of those things is evolutionary in our human nature. The need to belong to a group which is validated and confirmed by the existence of the human need for acceptance. The need to fit in often involves what is deemed as a common goal for the group, no matter what the specific goal may be.

If radical and self-destructive actions are taken by the group to be the highest honour that one can have, then a member who believes this will equate his/her self-worth with it. Religions which can be used to promote hatred and violence by justification through the teachings themselves are inherently succeptable to be used as motivational tools. All it takes is a few radical/extreme 'leaders' and a few susceptible 'followers'. A belief in an afterlife which is remarkably better than life itself compounded with the idea that murdering those with different morality codes is rewarded by 'the powers at be' is certain fuel for the suicide missions and allow one in such a position to carry out the deed expecting the reward.

Religious texts are being used to promote a personal sense of ought, just as they have been in the past. When the personal becomes the collective history has repeatedly shown us that human disaster follows regardless of whether or not any specific religion is involved.

Groupthink is the focus.

It all boils down to a moral problem.

When including “religion” as an integral part of the problem, I think Dr Andy is guilty of presenting an ill-defined concept and playing on the amorphous quality of that lack of definition. (I think this is actually true of most people who argue about religion. They tend to lump together three very separate and distinctly different concepts and play a sort of “shell game” with them when arguing.)

So I’d like to offer my opinion as to those three concepts, their differences, and how they relate to any solution:

1) Religion as a doctrine – this is a set of rules. That’s all. It has no force in and of itself. There must be people to believe in it and/or enforce it.

Doctrine cannot be eradicated. You can burn all the Bibles and Korans if you want. But it will not eradicate the doctrine anymore than burning all the rulebooks would eradicate the game of chess. You’d have to wipe all traces of those doctrines/rules from the minds of everyone to completely eradicate the doctrines/rules.

2) Religion as an organization – this is one or more people who agree on an ideology. It has as its foundation “agreement”. Without people agreeing on something a group cannot exist.

Like doctrine, this cannot be eradicated either. You would have to somehow render all the individuals either 1) incapable of agreeing, or 2) unwilling to agree. Which brings us to…

3) Religion as a personal belief – the subjective state of an individual relative to the doctrine.

This is the source of all the force and action. There is nothing else able to impart force or perform action that is not fundamentally based on the individual’s subjective state.

So again, the only way to eradicate the problem is to either change the subjective state of individuals, or render individuals unable to act on their subjective state.

But Dr Andy presented nothing practical in that respect. He hasn’t done, or proposed a method for doing, either. He’s just preaching to the choir.

And now that I think about it, the fact that Bushi did not see the visual images, may actually have afforded him a less emotional view of the presentation. But that’s simply an argument for the idea that there was some intent or agenda on Dr Andy’s part to effect emotional responses from the audience – which is fundamentally the same type of manipulative process that he is decrying.

Quite the contrary, the worth or value of the information presented is measured by it’s usefulness in arriving at a conclusion or solution. In other words, if you can’t do something with the information (i.e. either use it in a logical process to arrive at a conclusion, or apply it as a solution), it is worthless.

So really, what would be odd to me is the idea that the focus should not shift to the conclusions or solution, since that is the only way of measuring the value of the information.

It is apparent that no one disputes the facts. So ok, where do we go from there? Is that all this thread is about? Determining whether or not the facts are the facts? If so, the then no one should have posted anything at all because no one has disputed the facts.

So what’s left to focus on? If we can’t focus on conclusions and solutions, then there’s nothing left to focus on.

On the contrary, it is exactly that type “identification of things that are actually different” that muddles things. (See my previous post on that very subject.)

I agree that it is fundamentally a moral problem.

But again I have to say that blaming it on “group think” is both backwards and ill-defined.

There must first be individuals who “think” something before there can be a “group think”. The group think does not create the individual thinks. The individual thinks create the group think. (Or more accurately, the action of agreeing on the individual thinks is what creates the “group think”.

And going back to the “value of information”, how does “group think”, as a datum, apply to a conclusion or solution? Group think is a product of “individual think” + “agreement”. There is nothing else that suddenly springs into being out of nowhere when two or more people agree. (Other than the agreement itself.) What does happen is that the agreements form a sort off positive feedback loop - once the individuals agree on one thing, they then seek something else to agree on, and so on.

So personally, I don’t think “group think” should be the focus.

As I’ve said several times, in several different ways, the only way “group think” can be solved, is by either 1) eradicating thebeliefs, or 2) eradicating the agreement.

It’s a simple, grade-school level algebraic equation:

(individual think) + (agreement) = (group think)

If you remove either factor from the left side of the equation, you no longer have an equality.

You can even apply all the grade-school-algebra rules to it to transform it and it still remains an equality.

(individual think) = (group think) - (agreement)
(agreement) = (group-think) - (individual think)

Brilliant! Very well done Abra. I'm jealous.

Yes this is brilliant Abra.

Scientists "observe" our bodies and say "this is what we are. and this is the reason we exist.

Spirit observes its body and say's "Look at what I have manifested," or "This is where I am."

Acknowledging the fact that groupthink is the common denominator in all of the examples is not the same as 'blaming it on groupthink' any more than recognizing any common denominator is.

Recognition is not blame, it is identification through knowledge and correlation.



Quoted for truth...

To define and trivialize the common denominator with such an oversimplification is wrongful thinking. Groupthink is the catalyst and the notion of being rewarded for killing non-believers is but one element of that particular kind of groupthink. A purely religious one, at that.

To claim that just because the focus has not yet been on a solution does not mean that the evidence presented cannot lead to one. There has been no scientific or logical refutation of evidence presented. We certainly cannot logically get anywhere by postulating things which haven't been proven to exist. That is a major part of the problem with the illogical beliefs contained within religions and the groupthink attached to those.

To pretend that groupthink does not exist in the manner that it does does not refute it's existence, it merely ignores the problem.

That is why I ask people to "THINK" for themselves. I think that 'group think' happens when people are just too lazy or afraid to think for themselves.

There are leaders and their are followers, and there are a few who think for themselves. It is an easy thing to get sucked into a 'group think' even if your own reasoning might not have taken you there.

People are afraid to question authority for fear of being 'outside the group.'

Individual thinkers do exist. Some become leaders, some are just loners.