Socially Transmitted Diseases

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

A topic of interest to me is Socially Transmitted Diseases.

Unlike diseases transmitted by pathogens - such as a virus, bacterium, or fungus - or environmental toxins like lead-based paint, Socially Transmitted Diseases are transmitted primarily though memetic means; sometimes through a combination of memetic and genetic factors. Socially transmitted diseases effecting a person’s mental health seem to have a higher memetic contribution; and those effecting a person’s physical health seem to have a higher genetic contribution.

I was originally introduced to the concept of Socially Transmitted Diseases through Nicholas Christakis’s TED Talks: The hidden influence of social networks http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence_of_social_networks.html and How social networks predict epidemics http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_how_social_networks_predict_epidemics.html; however I recently added 2 books to my reading list which cover a Socially Transmitted Disease I had not yet encountered: Affluenza.

Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic - Author(s) John de Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas H. Naylor
Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough - Author(s) Clive Hamilton, Richard Denniss

These books provide 4 synonymous definitions:

  1. a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more.
  2. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from efforts to keep up with the Joneses.
  3. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by the pursuit of the American Dream.
  4. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth.

I have yet to read the books, but a cursory glance alludes to the possibility that Affluenza is contracted by those already suffering from chronic Asociopathy. This seems probable, as those suffering from Asociopathy also seem to contract a pathological form of Neophilia - which it’s host experience a desire, bordering on obsession in some cases, to experience novelty. (Robert Anton Wilson wrote about this in The Illuminati Papers, however the phrase was originally coined by Christopher Booker in his book The Neophiliacs, written in 1969.

Asociopathy sets the need of its host to find fulfillment in external validation, usually in the approval of others. These people work at jobs they can’t stand, and take out loans they can’t afford, to buy things they don’t need, to impress people they don’t like. If this external validation of others is sought by “having the best of everything, so what I have is better than what you have”, Affluenza manifests itself. If the external validation of others is sought by “having the newest, shiniest thing”, Neophilia manifests itself.

Then there are the discriminatory Socially Transmitted Diseases, all which fall under the broad umbrella of Otherization. These include racism, ageism, homophibia, and the like. These Socially Transmitted Diseases are almost 100% memetic in attribution, with genetic factors playing an insignificant role. Certain sectors of society are rife with memetic influences which propagate the otherization of certain groups of people. Dehumanization is the favored tool of those seeking to propagate Otherization; and was refined by Nazi’s in the dehumanization of the Jews. Many Nazi’s would treat (those they considered) humans equitably - but woe to those whom were not considered humans. The dehumanization is what allows for such abhorrent treatment of others. This is also why people who think homosexuality is wrong, also think it is OK to beat or kill homosexuals. They are not viewed as humans.

There is also the Socially Transmitted Disease of Religiopathy. “Belief in the absence of evidence is faith, belief in opposition to the evidence is Religiopathy.” Those suffering from Religiopathy have their moral compass pointing in the wrong direction, as their morals come from a 2000 year old text created by a tribe of desert nomads. If their writings say “It is ok to kill when God asks you to”, then, as long as you have the all mighty’s blessing, killing is totally moral. This, of course, is the exact opposite of what is true. This inversion of morals, in regards to human sexuality, causes sufferers of Religiopathy to contract the Socially Transmitted disease of Oneitis, or it’s chronic form, known as Matrimoniopathy - The pathological neurotic belief requiring marraige to be an element of a satisfying long term sexual relationship. Matrimoniopathy and Oneitis liken love to a pitcher of icy cold beer. The more beer you give to someone, the less beer available to everyone else. The more love you give to one person, the less available to the rest of humanity.

And finally, there are Socially Transmitted Diseases such as Obesity, which have strong genetic factors in addition to memetic factors. I found it interesting in the TED talk, that even if the friends of your friends are obese, you have an increased risk of becoming obese yourself.

Certainly this is not an extensive list - and I have really just started my inquiries into this field - so if you have anything whatsoever to contribute, I would love to hear it. Are there any other socially transmitted diseases which merit further study? Two I will be looking into are Kleptomania and Scientism; however I am on the look for other afflictions to study - as this will give me a more complete understanding of Socially Transmitted Diseases.

The Doorman

2

You don’t suffer from any of the listed ‘diseases’?

3

I used to suffer from most of them. I would even wager that I still have a mild case of Neophilia - but when you consider I’d previously contacted a number of Socially Transmitted Diseases, including racism, homophobia, religiopathy and oneitis/matrimoniopathy, and have since rid myself of those, I’m doing fairly well. (I am vigilant to ensure I do not come down with a case of Scientism, as James Surowiecki shows how easy this can happen in his TED talk- using an excellent analogy of how army ants blindly follow the ant in front of them… and its possible they end up in a death spiral if the lead ant begins to follow the last ant)

My Racism and homophobia were direct result of how unfamiliar I was with different races and people with different sexual orientations - rather my a deep knowledge and thorough understanding of those groups. (I’ve found that to be the case with most people who have one form of Otherization of another.) It was only after meeting people of different races and sexual orientations, that I found out the memes I was exposed to were false - and that the members of different races/sexual orientations were just as human as I.

I’ve suffered from Asocipoathy, Neophilia and Affluenza for most of my life - because of the strength of the memes propagating the idea that to be happy, you have to have stuff. And lots of stuff. And new stuff, and expensive stuff. It was only after reading Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert that I was exposed to ideas which were able to counteract the memes I had forced upon me by the media for my entire life. This lead me to study Martin Seligman’s work on Learned Helplessness and Positive Psychology; which I found incredibly helpful in combating the trifecta of Asociopathy, Neophilia and Affluenza.

It was my study of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics which freed me from the grip of Religiopathy and Matriomniopathy. (I really had a bad case of those… growing up attending a Lubavitcher synagogue every week.) However a study of morals and ethics - particularly that of Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett - dealt the final blow to my affliction of these socially transmitted diseases.

Because I understand how devastating each and every one of these can be, I see a need to better understand them, and to research the memes capable of combating them. (Luckily, my family seems to have a genetic makeup which makes my contracting of Obesity highly unlikely… as long as I don’t set up an IV drip of High Fructose Corn Syrup, I should be all right there - however that has not stopped me from reading up on it in books like the Omnivore’s Dilemma, and Fast Food Nation)

The Doorman

4

I think you have a case of Otherization. Your description of Religiopathy and Matriomniopathy is very stereotypical. That’s a clue that you are dividing the world into ‘Me and my buds’ and Others. You are superior to Others. Others have diseases. Homophobes would say gays and lesbians have a disease. Racists describe others as being deficient. You have your target groups.

5

While I certainly see how you could perceive this to be the case, I very much understand that Religiopaths are human. I have no hate for them - quite the contrary, I respect their potential enough as intelligent human beings to be persuaded by the truth (evidence). I happily engage them in conversation, and give their thoughts and beliefs full consideration - in the hopes that doing so, they will also give their own thoughts and beliefs full consideration. (And while I do hope they give my thoughts and beliefs full consideration, I do not demand it)

If you’ll look, I posted a question about prayer in the religion section of ILP, in an effort to gain more understanding of which religion has the most effective method of praying, or to see which of their gods answers the most prayers. Dismissing religion as sillyness, without taking the time to scientifically investigate it would be commiting the exact “sin” I am interested in preventing.

This does not mean I am not saddened by all the lives ruined by religiopathy and matrimoniopathy - I am, which is why I engage in conversation with these groups. Very few problems are solved by not talking about them.

Just being white does not make me an otherizer towards non-whites. Just as being of a worldview where verifiable empirical evidence matters, does not make me an otherizer towards those who believe in Iron Age fairy tales.

In my study of morals, I have found that - in order to increase the happiness and reduce the suffering of sentient creatures - anti-theism is one of the most ethical positions one can take. This does not mean to do as they do, and launch a crusade or inquisition. Rather, to engage them in a dialectic conversation. Many people have religious beliefs, because they have not been exposed to scientific rational thought - as was the case for me. Once I was exposed to different views, and was able to make a comparison as to which one more closely resembled reality, religion was discarded. I am grateful for the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and the like, for the knowledge they exposed me to. I simply wish to continue their good deeds, and spread opposing view points for people to consider, and contrast with their own.

It is not important to me if someone accepts my belief. It is important that they are aware of opposing beliefs, and contrast them. It is only by considering multiple view points, that one is able to get a (more) clear picture of reality.

On that note, I am off to enjoy Thanksgiving. I’ll be back next week.

The Doorman

6

I don’t know if you realise it, but this is an exact mirror of what many evangelicals say about non-believers - “I don’t hate them - in fact, I love them all. They all have the potential to find God in their hearts if they only have the courage and honesty to look” etc. :slight_smile:

I think that’s a fairly simplistic view of why people pray. Or perhaps I have an overly complex one. In any case, I don’t think it’s as instrumental/mercenary an act as you do.

Describing “the other” as suffering from a disease or disorder makes you an otheriser.

I think the very vast majority of religious conversion is not achieved by either crusade or inquisition. While I’m not religious or theistic in any meaningful sense, and that (at least in the West) churches have harmful consequences as political organisations, I think Dawkins et al do the discussion no favours with the hyperbolic approach they take. No more than the hyperbolic claims of the religious right, in fact. It’s not philosophy, it’s group politics: the polemic runs on the lines of us and them, everything they do is bad and nothing they do is good, they should be more like us.

Happy thanksgiving to you!

7

I watched and enjoyed the videos. At the end of the first video Christakis speaks about how if you were connected to someone who was harming you, you’d want to sever the tie, just as if you’d developed cancer, you would sever the flesh to save the whole.

A relevant question is, how long does one try to cure a relation before one destroys it? And how often will one sever ties before they consider adapting to others, instead of expecting others to adapt to them.

Being part of the collective is far more powerful than being isolated. You speak of Nazi’s refining the Other, but division is so prevalent in Western Culture. Competition is divisive and results in multiple groups of people, hiding information from each other, producing cheaper (inferior) products, sabotaging and forcing others failure to benefit your own. It creates a false dichotomy and makes success mutually exclusive between groups.

Isn’t the potential of collaboration obvious?

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

8

in other words … religion.

9

I think almost anyone who makes things into catagories is an otheriser.
Some people think that’s bad because we are supposedto see everyone as equal and of the same class.
Ben made a post about how nationalism was divisive in a negative way.
He rarely posts, but I felt he was describing the one-class idealism of the moderns to a T.

10

That is ture. But, you have to realize that it is a naural human nature. And, that is the only difference between humans and other living inhabitants on the earth. Without this, we would have been the same as animals.

Others use to draw from the nature and their surroundings only to their immediate requirements. But, humans think of their future as well. This very nature is the cornerstone of our development. So, we should not discard it outrightly.

The important issue is balance in our approach. That is what we miss, more often than not.

Let us not blame America for everything. If America is so bad, then why others use their inventions? Stop using them and you will be safe from their influnce. Why others do not follow this?

One can easily say that the internet is full o porn and thus, it is bad. In that case, the remedy is simple-stop using net and you would be safe from porn. But, is it a wise thing to do? Everyone knows the answer. Again, the balance is the key.

We cannot be choosy in the sense that we want to take adventage of all their effort and still hold them guilty if anything goes wrong.

I bet that, given the option, more that half of population of any other country, would opt for living in America. This ratio can even go upto three-forth in the case of Asian, Afrcan and undeveloped countries. So, blaming America for everything is just a hyprocracy.

Once again, the simple and only remedy is to strike the balance in all aspects of life. And, believe me, that is not rocket science. It requires only a little of wisdom and we all are enriched with that much of quantity and quality. All we have to do is just looking at things objecively.

My friend, i think that you are bit over-reacting and generalizing all things. But, do not get me wrong. My no means, i am suggesting that we should have blind faith in religions.

But, you must realize that each and every thing you have today, is socially transmitted. Even the existance of youself is socially tranmitted. Can you tell me if you ever have been came across of any such thing in your life, that has not been socially transmitted?

The whole of our development and acquired knowledge is nothing but social transmission. And, that is the only reason why we, the humans, use to dominate this planet because other inhabitants totally lact this quality. And, this notion applies to philosophy also. Is the whole of philosophy is anything else than social transmission?

And, those books you mentioned, are not social transmission themselves, in a sense? Because, your mind did not manifested those thoughts. Those are socially transmitted to you.

So, this is to say that each and everything, that has been socially transmitted to us so far, is not useless. On the contrary, a majority of that is useful. Yes, there maybe some unwarrented notions as well and those should be discarded. That is precisely is the duty of the philosophy- refreshing the labelling of the all notions.

My friend, if any notion is 2000 years old, then it does not mean by default that it would be less worthy than a 200 years old. If one think so, then it also is a blind faith, just like those who believe blindly a 2000 years old notion. It is still blindness, merely in changed hands.

We must varify all notions, with the best of our abilities, in each and every way those may be done, prior to accepting or rejecting those.

My friend, it is not a discovery, as you presented it. Anyone, who prefers reasoning and wisdom than ego, can realize that easily. But, the problem is that, inspite of being enriched with wisdom, more often than not, we seldom use it and use to stand by our ego.

That is almost a discovery, if you realized that on your own. But, look at what you said in these lines. The social transmission is helping you even in avoding its de-merits.

One again, that is social transmission.

And, celebrating Thanksgiving is not also a kind of social trnamission?

My friend, what i heard from you so far, gives me impression that you have right and honest intent. But,you must realize that you are trying to avoid social tranmission assuming it as a bad thing but, while doing so, you are falling once again in the trap of different social tranmission. You are trying to cure an old decease by having a new one.

All i have to say that all we have from the past was not bad. And, all what we would have in the future, may not be in virtue. So, choose wisely and do not depend too much on what any other is saying. Put your nose between as that is the only way to acquire real wisdom. And, you are more than capable of that.

My wishes are with you.

with love,
sanjay

11

I must thank both you and Phyllo. Your comments have forced me to to think long and hard about this. I do not believe I have yet to reach a solid conclusion one way or the other, but - as is the case with my ponderings, it has lead me to a question:

Does a personal trainer, who works with a person suffering from obesity “otherize” them, in his desire to help them achieve a healthy weight? Or a nutritionist who combats obesity by developing a meal plan to reduce caloric intake?

How about an Oncologist? Does he “otherize” cancer patients, in his attempt to remove cancer from them?

Again, before anything - I must thank you. Your comments have lead me to deep thought.

In pondering these questions, I am also aware of how important it is to make sure the diseases are actually diseases, or we end up with the tragedy of “hysteria”, where women were sent to asylums - or “Conversion Therapy” which wreaks havoc on homosexuals by those trying to “normalize” them.

The DSM previously classified homosexuality as a disease, but has since been revised to remove that classification. So I have to ask myself… Are both homosexuality and homophobia diseases? Is only one of them? Are they both “normal”? And how do I make this determination?

As I have no training in pathology, I am not qualified to answer this; however I can answer the question “Are either of them socially transmittable?”

I have seen very little evidence that homosexuality is transmittable - however I can not deny the reality of ancient Greece - in which homosexuality was far more normative than it is now. I am not able to answer the question of whether the normative position of homosexuality increased the number of people who engage in homosexual acts or merely increased the number of people who Openly engage, since it was more culturally acceptable at the time.

Homophobia, however, does seem to be transmittable, spreading from bigot to bigot. It also does not stand up to scrutiny. When you get a homophobe interacting with a homosexual, but who is unaware of the homosexuality, they treat the other like a human. It is only after learning that the other is a homosexual that the bigotry ensues. Whereas a homosexual person interacting with another person will be indifferent as to whether the other person is straight or gay.

Setting aside the transmissibility for a moment, lets ask the next question: Who, if anyone, does any of these positions harm? Aside from putting themselves in danger from violent homophones, you could make the case they are at greater risk for AIDS/HIV or other STD’s. This of course requires 2 unjustified assumptions - that you compare them to people who abstain from sex, as opposed to straight people engaging in sex; and that their sex is unprotected. Comparing the risk factors of safe homosexual sex, to safe heterosexual sex, they are pretty much equivalent. Condoms offer protection from some, but not all STDs - this is true for straights and gays alike. I am unable to think of any other dangers associated with homosexuality.

Homophobes are not people who simply crack gay jokes - they are the people who crack gay skulls. More murders motivated by anti-gay bias occurred in 2011 than any year since the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs began collecting data in 1998, the national advocacy organization reported this week. In 2011, 30 fatally violent hate crimes were committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender victims.

So it would seem - whether or not you classify homophobia as a disease, it is transmissible, and harmful.

Being black, or dark, (or having a higher melanin concentration, if you will) is heritable. Transmitted genetically, not memetically. However melanin concentration does not seem indicative or any “deficiency” as you put it. If anyone is deficient, its white people , who are “melanin deficient”. However I have seen no convincing argument, other than pale-skinned red-heads sun-burn more easily, that melanin content has anything to do with disease.

Racism certainly seems to be socially transmittable, as “the South” was generally pro-slavery (owning blacks, who are “lesser”), and even today, that is where this meme is most prevalent.

While Atheism is without a doubt socially transmittable, (as is religiopathy/religion), we again have to ask ourselves - do either of these positions cause harm? One can point to a multitude of religions people and atheists who have done their fair share of harm - but do the doctrines of religion and atheism dictate harm be done? I am unaware of any wars that have been waged by non-believers upon believers, however history is full of wars waged upon non-believers (or believers in the wrong invisible man) by the faithful. Why? Because they are decreed to. (please ready Deuteronomy before arguing against this point)

In addition to the wars wages, and the suicide bombers… the anti-science stance religion takes harms MILLIONS. Their opposition to stem-cell research, and having 8 years of the Religiopath George W Bush in office, has set this life saving science back immensely; on the belief that cells in petri dishes may have souls. People you may know, or be related to - endure agonizing mental decline through degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. They are forced to undergo Chemo-Therapy, as stem cell therapies have stagnated, instead of advanced. You could argue that these are hypothetical cases… OK - So lets talk about AIDS infected sub-Saharan Africa - where MILLIONS are infected with AIDS, and the epidemic is spreading, because missionaries echo the Church’s teaching that condoms are evil. What’s evil, is allowing this scourge of a disease to continue (in this case, I was talking about AIDS, not Religiopathy - but if the shoe fits).

This is surprising to me. Other than evolutionary psychologist Christopher Ryan, I have not heard much about this. He makes such an interesting case that in the 200,000+ years where humans/proto-humans evolved as hunter-gatherers before the 10,000 years we’ve been farming, humans practiced Omnigamy. (A term I was unfamiliar with, until his work). This hypothesis explains everything from why females are multi-orgasmic, and men are effected by The Coolidge Effect, to the fact that (in women’s opinion) men come too quickly, to the shape of the penis and size of the testicles, to the fact that 90% of a man’s sperm has the job of destroying other men’s sperm.

If you think Communist Dating/Serial Monogamy/Oneitis/Matrimoniopathy is normal, I will simply invite you to read his book, Sex at Dawn - as he lays out the case far better than I ever could. I would be interested to hear your arguments/rebuttals.

Those are my thoughts on this for now - however I very much invite you to continue this conversation, as your previous comments have caused me to go deep in thought, which I enjoy.

It’s been a pleasure.

The Doorman

12

Joe - One of the 60-70 topics in my notebook which I have in the “This is interesting, do research on it” page is obligatorily gregarious. a quick google search notes Humans are obligatorily gregarious. The average person spends nearly 80% of waking hours in the company of others, most of which is spent in small talk.

This would seem to indicate that “asociopathy” is not a disease, but is the norm. However I do not know that being in the company of others, and the need for external validation are synonymous.

However, as I have yet to do my research on this subject, I will abstain from further comment. Let me learn a bit more, and I will feel competent enough to answer.

Thank you for the question though.

The Doorman

13

Long ago I read the book where Dawkins introduced ‘memes’ and Dennet’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. The word is definitely a clever dirivation of ‘genes’, but unless I’ve forgotten much about those books, Dawkins was only trying to show how humans through culture perpetuate themselves through idea or memes as well as genes. The word is now almost synonysmous with ‘idea’, though it has subtle difference in context, but I wonder if it has ever had any used in any serious scientific or philosophical context outside of a direct reference to Dawkins original use.

Now similar to memes authors speak of social transmitted diseases. I can see how it could also be a simple way of explaining a consept. In this case I imagine that it may be to show how diseases aren’t just carried through bacteria, viruses and genetics, but also through memes. Is there any other signifigance to it than that? I can come up with cliches as well as anyone. How about causality transmitted diseases, an example would be; one gets hit by a car, the trauma from the accident leads them to drinking, one day years later they hit someone else with a car and the cycle starts all over. The root structure of this causality will of course be a term I’ll coin ‘causalemes’. Now that I have a gimmick, maybe I should write a book.

14

The reason it’s acceptable to modify their diets or force them to undergo gruelling exercise is because they ask for differential treatment, no? If a homosexual asked a psychologist for help in becoming straight it wouldn’t be homophobic of the psychologist to see what he or she could do.

However, most of the sports trainers I know in fact do “otherise” obese people quite emphatically. Insofar as it’s an unthinking prejudice that operates at an emotive level, “obesitism” or whatever is right up there with racism, homophobia etc. Overweight people are generally seen as lazy, less intelligent and less employable - in the west. In some parts of the world, it’s a positive thing. It’s a prime candidate for a socially transmitted disease, in fact :slight_smile: Obesity in itself is really only undesirable from a mobility standpoint - it’s hard on the joints, and presents a barrier to many active pursuits. That it’s symptomatic of unhealthy diet, psychological problems, stress, lack of exercise and other factors makes it a useful diagnostic tool for medical workers - but attitudes towards obesity are emphatically not based on cool statistical scientific models, however much people try and justify their prejudices that way.

Cancer is a physical disease - your examples (e.g. racism) are behavioural, and it is your behaviour I was referring to as “otherising” :slight_smile:

I think this is a red herring. Not that there is a difference in transmissibility, but all (political) behaviours are socially transmittable. Racism is socially transmittable, but so is equality. Communism is socially transmittable, so are libertarianism, fascism and social democracy. Fundamentalist Christianity is as socially transmittable as secular atheism.

I can’t think of any violent homophones besides “fight” and “-phyte” :wink:

I don’t see think it’s even slightly controversial that (male) homosexuals are at more risk of HIV infection than heterosexuals engaging in equal amounts of sex with equal numbers of partners - HIV is much more prevalent among the former, and the principal transmission routes are more often encountered (men transmit it far more easily to their partners than women). Safe sex is safe, of course, but for a given level of condom failure, homosexual sex will be much more risky than heterosexual sex.

I don’t think it’s very controversial that murder is unacceptable, or that we need a theory of social disease to explain that… but since you make the argument by comparing harms: if someone could show that further social acceptance of homosexuality will cause at least an additional 31 deaths a year from HIV-related causes, would that make the homophobia an acceptable cost? It seems to me that most people would feel that that’s not the point…

Deuteronomy decrees a lot of things that no-one besides heavily orthodox Jews take any notice of, until it suits their political ends. Non-believers don’t wage wars over belief, because they don’t believe, but everyone believes in something. The clue is in your post - “wars waged upon non-believers (or believers in the wrong invisible man)”. Wars have been waged by secular industrialised nations in the name of spreading democracy, or safeguarding human rights… they don’t use Deuteronomy any more, they just pick different texts and political arguments to defend their powerplays. Look at the second world war: tens of millions died, for no religious reasons; it was waged by believers in nationalism against believers in liberal democracy (and vice versa), and the losers’ beliefs were relegated to the past.

In case it’s not clear - I mostly agree with your politics, even where I criticise your arguments!

I think it’s extremely normal. I don’t think I’ve visited any society where it’s not the arrangement for the majority of the population - what else is normal? Living in houses is normal, eating bread is normal, wearing clothes is normal.

Of course, “normal” isn’t necessarily good, but then neither is “natural”. :slight_smile:

15

O_H covered a lot of what I was going to say.

I found this an interesting:

What? No reference to Bonobos?
But seriously…
You criticize morals coming from ‘a 2000 year old text created by a tribe of desert nomads’ but have no qualms about holding up 200,000 year old mating habits as an example of suitable sexual behavior. :smiley:

There was a lot of experimentation with open marriages and other sexual relationships in the 60s and 70s and most of it didn’t work out. We certainly don’t live in a culture were strict monogamous marriage is required. As long as some discretion is observed, it’s possible to try an alternate arrangement. How is it working for you?

16

I thank you for your well thought out replies. I shall not comment on them… not because I have nothing to say about them - but because what you say requires me to think before I speak. I shall ponder what you say - as much of it has merit.

You seem clear-headed enough for me to ask this very pointed question. I am not asking rhetorically, but out of genuine curiosity.

I understand “having faith” in something. And I have no problem with “the faithful” (religious or otherwise), if you accept this non-controversial definition:
Belief in the absence of evidence is faith.

There are MANY MANY things we must place faith in, because we have no evidence one way or another.

However, what do you say my my definition of Religiopathy,
Belief in opposition to the evidence is religiopathy.

We have evidence indicating the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, and that the age of the observable universe is 13.72 billion years old. And the evidence is not available in insignificant amounts. There is overwhelming amounts of evidence all pointing in roughly the same direction; so in the face of all this evidence, to believe the Earth is 6000 years old… seems patholigical.

The same goes for evolution. When my parents were growing up, the “missing link” argument was actually still quite valid - however with the discoveries of Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx), Tiktaalik roseae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik), and hominids like Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis… they make this missing link argument invalid. (Damn it! I wish there was an appropriate "Your argument is invalid demotivational poster I could use for this)

Denying evolution is either the result of ignorance (sure - not everyone is into evolutionary biology) or denial. If you are ignorant about evolution, you probably don’t deny it, you just don’t care about it enough to have an informed opinion… However if you DENY evolution, actively… you seem to be disputing reality. Isn’t disputing reality what classifies someone as mentally ill? (I would guess your answer is no, and you have a well thought out reason to back it up, which is precisely why I am asking you) From my point, currently, it seems denying reality because it goes against what you want to believe… is pathological.

(Straw man argument ahead)
I would LOVE for santa to be real. How aweomse would that be. Flying reindeer tracked by NORAD, free gifts for all the good kids… Hell - that would be a real incentive for kids to behave. But just because it would be awesome, and regardless of how much I would love for it to be true - no amount of belief makes something a fact. And for me to base reality on what I want to believe IN OPPOSITION to the facts, again, seems pathological.
(Yes, I know you can not prove a negative, like santa not existing - but lets not go there for the sake of this argument)

Can’t wait to hear your thoughts on this!!!

The Doorman

17

Oh… Slow APPLAUSE! =D>

Somehow, I failed to include bonobos! Thank you for noticing my oversight!

You make a good point. I have an answer in my mind, however I shall have to ponder this - because knowing something in one’s own mind, and being able to effectively communicate it to someone else is completely different. (Actually, that’s where I get most of my insights… Rough ideas in my head, made clearer by wanting to explain them to others, but its the back and forth after that with fully expressed ideas between 2 people where the magic seems to happen)

Actually, quite well - thanks for asking. Over the last dozen years or so, I’ve had quite a fair share of whatever I wanted from virgins to 3somes, to one/multiple night stands and relationships spanning years. For the first time, I’m actually choosing to be single, so I can satisfy pleasures of the mind; which is hard to do when all the blood flows to the other head, and satisfying pleasures of the body.

You reminded me of a saying I know - Neurolinguistic programming is a way of using your tongue, which treats the brain like a sexual organ.

The Doorman

18

I’d certainly agree that it’s a problem when in flat contradiction to the evidence. It can be a problem when there’s no or insufficient evidence, depending on the consequences of the belief, too, or even a problem when it’s in accordance with the evidence… and this is a place to be careful of talking about beliefs as individual things floating around in our heads. It’s a pernicious problem in philosophy - because we talk of “a belief” we come to think that there must be some thing, possibly even physical, to which it corresponds. Beliefs are our relation to some propositions/statements (which aren’t things either) and how they in turn relate to the world (which is largely made up of things, most people would agree :slight_smile: ).

I hope it’s not too much of a digression, but to try to explain what I mean: imagine one racial group has on average a lower intellectual capacity/power than another group. Would it be preferable to correctly believe this and conclude that the first group was better fitted for menial labour and more resources should go on educating the latter group, incorrectly believe that they are equal and deserve equal funds, or correctly believe in the inequality and improve education for the former group at the expense of the latter? I think there’s a serious discussion to be had on the subject and the truth of the belief is almost a subsidiary factor - the ethical consequences of the truth being known are determined before the investigation: the correctness of the belief is less important than what we do with it. Does that make sense?

There are lots of denials of reality that aren’t classified as mental illness, from cognitive biases to outright lying, and lots of mental illnesses that don’t involve any delusion (on a related note, Foucault’s career took off with his analysis of madness as a tool for rationalists to marginalise and symptomise those outside the mainstream). I think much of what you are referring to falls into the first category: changing ones worldview as drastically as is demanded takes considerable effort and emotional control, and there are many cognitive processes that defend our current beliefs… there may also be those who think that it is more important that people believe in good things and morality (as they see it) than in a literal, ontological truth. Insofar as it’s the operation of normal psychological defence mechanisms, it’s not pathological; it may be a sign, as we gain more understanding of human psychology, that there are more productive ways to engage incorrect beliefs than gladiatorial debate.

As an aside, playing Devil’s advocate: what do you see as being the problem with someone denying evolution? The vast majority of people have absolutely no practical/technological use for it. Personally, I can’t think of a time when awareness of evolutionary theory has affected my actions towards others.

I won’t be around a great deal for the coming few days, but I look forward to your response.

19

I do not remember the source - but I was watching a documentary where it was explained that “For almost 2000 years, the belief that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception has had no real negative impact on anything. However, with the advent of stem-cell research, this previously benign belief becomes malignant, and puts serious roadblocks into technology which can save an untold number of lives, and increase the quality of life for those already living”.

Forgive me poor analogy - as it only loosely relates:
When studying a course on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, a question was raised. How should flutes be distributed among the population? Should they be distributed at random, so everyone has a fair chance to receive one? Should they be given to the expert flute players? How about to novice flute players, or even to non-musicians, so they have an opportunity to learn how to play the flute?

Aristotle’s ethics say that the flute should be given to the expert flute players, and his reasoning is that “The purpose of the flute, is to be played well”. If you follow this line of reasoning, then your first possibility would be the one chosen. Correctly acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses - and act accordingly. If a particular group has lower capacity for mental activity, and higher capacity for physical activity, then Aristotle’s ethics say they should do menial labor, or play professional sports/wrestling/boxing, do construction work… (and let the 90 lb weakling with a penchant for mathematics work on prototype rockerty or the like)

As usual, your ideas have merit. Thank you for providing a useful perspective for me to consider.

Actually, this is a completely valid question. There is an entire field of study, Pharmacogenomics - which is the whole genome application of pharmacogenetics, which examines the single gene interactions with drugs. It is the branch of pharmacology which deals with the influence of genetic variation on drug response in patients by correlating gene expression with a drug’s efficacy or toxicity. By doing so, pharmacogenomics aims to develop rational means to optimize drug therapy, with respect to the patients’ genotype, to ensure maximum efficacy with minimal adverse effects. Such approaches promise the advent of “personalized medicine”; in which drugs and drug combinations are optimized for each individual’s unique genetic makeup.

(basically - without genetic testing, there is no way to say why certain drugs have different effects/effacacies on different people. It turns out a lot of the difference is due to the differences in the genome. The promise pharmacogenetics holds, is rather than make 1 pill for the population, you will make 1 type of pill for each person, reducing toxicity, and increasing efficacy.)

–
I suppose a retort could be - “He asked about evolution, not genetics” - but as intertwined and interrelated as these 2 fields are, I do not find that to be a valid question.

The Doorman