What Memes annoy you?
Offline The idea of memes, or ideas that spread indifferent to the health of the 'host', are rather interesting. I think of all the concepts we hold that we take for granted. What concepts do you face that just annoy you, even the smallest of so-called facts of life or principles of our world that simply need to either go or be changed.
I have several I could list, but I'll jsut start with the idea of Gender. How many variables are involved in determining the 'nature' of any one person. I idea that there is only two choices is pretty insulting. Now keep in mind I am not talking about what dangles between the legs, that is only one part of a person, and you can't just so eazly judge the whole of a being by that one single thing. I'ts a concept I would love to see changed.
So, what annoys you?
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.
Offline Actually there really ARE only 2 genders (for humans anyway.) Unless you have some sort of genetic mutation birth defect, you are either XX or XY. If you are XX you are male, XY you are female. There are those sorts who consider themselves "women trapped in men's bodies" or such, but as far as I'm concerned (and as far as the DSM is concerned) they're mentally ill. If someone's gay, that's one thing but pretending to be another sex is just whack.
I apologize, but you seem rather narrow minded in that feild. For one thing Sex does define reproductive function, but that's pretty much it. There is a wide degree of varience within sexes. Also given the complexity of the human midn One can not so eazily define an individual (the whole) as just a sex. Sure, sex defines the physical nature, but seeing as their is no Objective reality behind how we must use those bits (in other words no god) it's relaly just subjective how you want to 'use your tools'. So that whole "evolution 'ment' us to do X" is a foolish statement.
Now for the comment of transexuality, I agree with you if they claim they have some magical right to be women. But if is just a preference, objecting to their desire to become another sex is like objecting with the Wright Brothers for "pretending to be birds".
And for the sake of not going crazy with all of this, if you want to talk more I'l give you my Gmail if you want it.
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.
Offline todangst wrote:But then I must ask: Why is there such a propensity for humans to be emotionally hurt by rejection? Yes, we can argue that this hurt is driven by man made expecations and man made moral injunctions, but the question remains: why are humans so easily able to be hurt, rejected, depressed, etc. when they lose a loved one?That's a damn good question, todangst. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest that it's not as cultural as people think. We can observe that across cultures, rejection is represented by different ritual behaviors, but emotional hurt is ubiquitous, regardless of the form the rejections takes.
Might it be that we have an instinctual aversion to breaches of the 'rules' of reciprocal altruism? It's a little convoluted, but negative reinforcement plays a role in directing instinctual behavior, too. When we break the rules of reciprocal altruism, other people react badly towards us, and our empathy triggers negative feelings in our own psyche. We feel bad when we make other people feel bad. Individuals who become hurt when they are wronged might then be a more advanced form of negative incentive to play by the rules.
In other words, if there are mutual rewards for playing by the rules, might there also be mutual penalties for breaking them? If we suffered no apparent ill for hurting others, we'd do it a lot more, so perhaps our tendency to get severely hurt by emotional slight is another way of inducing reciprocal altruism.
Well speaking of Empathy, maybe we can take another route to udnerstand why rejection is so universal. Empathy may have some instictual roots, but the range it takes seems to be somthing that must be culturally progressed. For instance how a small tribe may look after one another and yet see everything outside that small circle as the 'other' to be fought or used as they see fit. As communication becomes easier this 'circle' grows. The some of the more exposed expand their circles to people of other nations, colors, creeds, and what seems to be rather difficult in our history is expanding to the other sex.
Even with romantic feelings, without a strong sence of empathy an individual may have much more concern for themselves than the others involved. This may engender a stronger feeling of entitlement than they would if they could feel how another person feels and the difficulty of adjusting relationships (that is assuming the other person isn't simply betraying them). I have no sociological training, but it's my inpresion that some who see their lovers as more of a symbol for their social standing/ gender preference than an individual tend to be more posessive.
But honestly, I would love to hear an expert talk about these subjects.
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.
Offline .... for general imformation , prophet Richard Dawkins coined the word "meme" , in 1976 in his book, "The Selfish Gene"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
X___X I can't believe I didn't add that information...
Thank you very much.
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.
Offline But honestly, I would love to hear an expert talk about these subjects.
LMAO. What qualifies one as an expert in these matters?
If you're looking for a psychologist or psychiatrist without bias in matters of the 'heart' then bon chance, mon ami.
"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec
Online Empathy may have some instictual roots, but the range it takes seems to be somthing that must be culturally progressed.
Without question.
For instance how a small tribe may look after one another and yet see everything outside that small circle as the 'other' to be fought or used as they see fit. As communication becomes easier this 'circle' grows. The some of the more exposed expand their circles to people of other nations, colors, creeds, and what seems to be rather difficult in our history is expanding to the other sex.
Almost certainly, for 99.9% of human history, we have been in tribal groups that were most likely all family, and were almost never bigger than maybe two hundred. Very likely, they were usually much smaller. There's an unproven theory that I rather fancy. It states that modern humans' obsession with deoderant, perfume, etc, is a backlash against having to smell so many non-relatives. Back in the savannah days, we probably did a lot more by smell than we do now. As you say, human brains are not really qualified for multicultural crowded cities. We do what we can with our instincts, yet we still go to clubs where most everyone is at least similar to us, if not family.
Speaking of smell, have you ever met a girl (or guy... I don't mean to presume) that, by all rights, you ought to like, and when you thought about her by yourself, you knew she'd be an awesome girlfriend, but when you got around her, you always got turned off? I'm absolutely convinced that smells and pheromones play an enormous role in mating. I can't wait until the people with the right degrees do the hard research.
I have no sociological training, but it's my inpresion that some who see their lovers as more of a symbol for their social standing/ gender preference than an individual tend to be more posessive.
Yes. And frankly, this is not abberant from the historical norm. Equality in mating is a brand spanking new concept, as far as we can tell.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
Online yeah Hambydammit, quote, "I'm absolutely convinced that smells and pheromones play an enormous role in mating." ~
YUP, Like a Chemical Addiction, that true love of mine. I have always since, known this to be true. She just always smells DIVINE !
and shit, otherwise she mostly pisses me off ??? 
damn it, damn it, damn it, where is the mercy , Ohhh God .....
Offline So, what annoys you?
Oh, wow... I could probably think of hundreds if not thousands of memes I dislike if I were willing to spend the time.... But, I'd have to say that the ones that annoy me the most are those having to do with judging (and altering) people's worth through superficial or culturally biased criteria. For example, if someone buys a $100 name-brand bag, there are many people who would consider that person to be "better" than someone who bought an otherwise identical generic bag for $20... even though the $20 bag is clearly the more practical and sensible purchase without that meme.
Well, technically there are at least several choices based on what's between the legs, when you consider hermaphrodites...
I agree with you completely on this one. If you haven't read my series on sex and mythology, check it out here...
On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture
There are two child pages with continuing essays at the bottom of the page.
My current meme of least favor is that humans are naturally monogamous. It seems like a majority of atheists believe this, as well as pretty much all Christians.
I seem to be on a one man crusade to educate people about what human nature actually is, as opposed to what we've been taught that it should be.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
Indeed. Worse, some people seem to think that not only are humans naturally monogamous, but other animals are not, hence associating non-monogamous relationships with "primitive creatures". There are many animals which are naturally monogamous, but humans are not one of them. In fact, just last summer I went into the Amazon rainforest from Puerto Maldonado in Peru to observe monogamous wild parakeets.
True virtue is life under the direction of reason
-Baruch de Spinoza
It is the mark of a reasoned man that he can without problem separate what he can deduce as true from that which he wishes to be true -Me
JanCham asks, "So, what annoys you?"
In my monogamous state I catch a sniff and go poly, evolution is annoying, and so I am by nature a hungry wolf. So annoying it is, but there is the up side, a brief satisfaction. Embrace, don't deny, open the eyes, see that stuff ! Excite or Perish. Reach out.
Then there are the conservatives to devoure too ....
Interesting. I have to imagine that it is easy to be monogamous when your species has a limited number of traits that separate individuals in any meaningful way. Say what you will about humans, but we are more complex than other animals, and that leads to quite a bit of variation. Add in the fact that humans live longer than most animals, multiply that by the number of contacts with other interesting individuals humans may have, further multiply that by the wild differences in resource acquisition, physical attractiveness found in humans, and the idea that a human ought to mate like a parakeet appears more than odd.....
But then I must ask: Why is there such a propensity for humans to be emotionally hurt by rejection? Yes, we can argue that this hurt is driven by man made expecations and man made moral injunctions, but the question remains: why are humans so easily able to be hurt, rejected, depressed, etc. when they lose a loved one?
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
Actually there really ARE only 2 genders (for humans anyway.) Unless you have some sort of genetic mutation birth defect, you are either XX or XY. If you are XX you are male, XY you are female. There are those sorts who consider themselves "women trapped in men's bodies" or such, but as far as I'm concerned (and as far as the DSM is concerned) they're mentally ill. If someone's gay, that's one thing but pretending to be another sex is just whack.
Science works whether you believe in it or not.
That's a damn good question, todangst. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest that it's not as cultural as people think. We can observe that across cultures, rejection is represented by different ritual behaviors, but emotional hurt is ubiquitous, regardless of the form the rejections takes.
Might it be that we have an instinctual aversion to breaches of the 'rules' of reciprocal altruism? It's a little convoluted, but negative reinforcement plays a role in directing instinctual behavior, too. When we break the rules of reciprocal altruism, other people react badly towards us, and our empathy triggers negative feelings in our own psyche. We feel bad when we make other people feel bad. Individuals who become hurt when they are wronged might then be a more advanced form of negative incentive to play by the rules.
In other words, if there are mutual rewards for playing by the rules, might there also be mutual penalties for breaking them? If we suffered no apparent ill for hurting others, we'd do it a lot more, so perhaps our tendency to get severely hurt by emotional slight is another way of inducing reciprocal altruism.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
Other way around.
True virtue is life under the direction of reason
-Baruch de Spinoza
It is the mark of a reasoned man that he can without problem separate what he can deduce as true from that which he wishes to be true -Me
A small list of annoying memes:
1.) "America was founded on christian values."
2.) "The declaration of Independence was only printed in English therefore we are founded as an English speaking country."
http://www.dhm.de/magazine/unabhaengig/boette_e.htm
3.) The word 'democracy' when used to describe the government of the USA.
4.) The word 'socialism' used to describe fascist regimes of the past.
5.) Libertarianism's glittering generalities.
6.) The word 'darwinism'
7.) The words 'intelligent design' capitalized or even used at all.
8.) Every single christian song meant for young people. 'He's still working on me.', 'jesus loves the little children', and many others.
"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec
.... for general imformation , prophet Richard Dawkins coined the word "meme" , in 1976 in his book, "The Selfish Gene"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Thanks. Shit, how'd I fuck that up?
Science works whether you believe in it or not.
Well, technically there are at least several choices based on what's between the legs, when you consider hermaphrodites...
My current meme of least favor is that humans are naturally monogamous. It seems like a majority of atheists believe this, as well as pretty much all Christians.
:3 Well I am very impressed, you took words right out of my mouth. However I have to point out the difference between Gender and Sex. Sex can be eazier to define, but still can be murky of course, while Gender suggests more of a modality. After all, you can itenify the 'tools' very eazily, just how to use them is another story
And yes, being able to be in a plural relationship opens up many possiblities and also is a valuable challenge.
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.