The Psychology Thread

Uh. That seems to quite mistake a few things...Evolution does not plan so much for society as it does for the individual. Evolution is more about getting to fuck so you cand ie leaving others who can fuck more efficiently, not so much about a sustainable society of intelelctually superior peers

Another thing people seem to not get is that the process of evolution does not go for 'optimal' on anything. it just goes for what works, even if it's slap-dashed, and may not seem logical from our perspective. if it works, evolution is cool with it.

Also, I am more of a proponent that sexuality is more of a social construct than anything else.

From what I gather, sexual orientation is actually more of a sliding scale than anything else. There's no such thing as a perfectly heterosexual man who hates everything related to 'sexy males' - although men are often expected by society to display that kind of behavior.

What about gender identity though? Do most humans have an intristic desire to be his/her own gender identity, or is it again a social construct/personal preference?

The short answer to that is "we don't know". The longer answer includes the instances of recorded self-identification of children.

Self-images happen early; what is unknown is how and how much culture interacts with the intrinsic... and if children are mainly restricted in expressing what is there it by experience, permission and/or vocabulary.

Should children be supported in establishing their gender identity? On one hand, children are smarter than they're given credit for. On the other hand, they can be immature, and even adults have trouble thinking about issues such as gender and sexuality...

Again: dunno and probably depends. Look, kids might well have a gender identity of their own which probably doesn't include much sexuality to start with (the foundations will be there; it's up to puberty to build on them), yet can throw out signals they don't intend to (or don't rightly know the full meaning of). Which can get too bleeding dangerous for their own good if the wrong adult chooses to take those signals as fact. :/

Reading behaviour is as much on the person doing the reading as it is on the one writing. <_< In short: beware all ye who read Baby's First Attempt at Mummy's Flirting as an embossed invite with full permissions.

edited 19th Nov '15 5:40:25 AM by Euodiachloris

I remember a biologically-female child who wanted to be male due to preference of 'male' activities over 'female' ones. Preferring cars over dresses and such.

I have no idea what I should feel about this.

When we say "culture does this" or "culture does that" we may very well be talking about the genetic predispositions of parents. It's very complicated. I recall research that emphasized the prenatal environment as one of the key factors influencing sexual orientation (specifically the amount of testosterone in the womb). Thus, biological and less of a choice, even though the child's gene's are not the driving force.

The only way to know would be to conduct hideous, fascinating genetic engineering experiments on unborn children and wait to see what happens when they grow up. Unlikely.

And, really. In one case or another, is homosexuality a "negative" thing enough that it threathens...anything? I mean, are the "accomodations" (AKA Basic decency) needed to let it live in our society really all that awful?

Clinical psychology is more oriented towards many clinical cases. By clinical I mean at least by its DSM definition something like "negatively impacts your life or those around you enough". From a theorethical point of view, studying homosexuality, its possible origins genetic or biological or cultural is fucking fascinating but fucking useless.

I do not care about who fucks who so long as it is done in a safe, sane and consensual situation, really. But unless you find me a genetical predisposition gene for putting your dick in hospital refuse cans while high on meth without condoms, I am going to go and say that homosexuality is really a non-issue for the individual.

Problems with it are more the repression the society and stuff forces on them than homosexuality itself.

I'm on the same page, pretty much. I don't consider "gender-inappropriate behaviour" an actual issue or condition in its own right.

It's only a real problem if the culture around you tends to lynch people for it... which kind of hints that the problem might not be with the individual with "the problem", but may lie with the culture that identifies it as one.

Culturally specific conditions are generally a cultural problem. :/

What physical threat is a girl in a suit, or a boy in a dress?

edited 19th Nov '15 6:27:05 AM by Euodiachloris

As much of a threat as this guy. (That's a joke. The Wikipedia link has the picture that explain the joke, but I'll also link it here◊.)

Now, more seriously, an interesting article about the joke in this very post.

edited 19th Nov '15 8:51:48 AM by Victin

I abhor the trope Go Mad from the Revelation.

I don't believe in anything becoming too incomprehensible that it will break your sanity...unless you have to either write a paper/take test on or have to lecture on that shit.

Well... As far as I'm aware, that might as well as have happened to Nietzsche.

But that might depend on whether or not you consider that he went mad from the revelation or was already insane to begin with

(this post is half-serious half-Philosophically/Historically humorous, if you found it funny)

Now, a possibly too big of a question.

Is conscience innate or acquired?

The capacity for a conscience is innate. Maybe the broad parameters (no matter the actual ideology involved, it will always include some component corresponding to the common good, etc.). But the details? Acquired.

What makes the capacity for conscience? Sentience? Sapience?

Brain structure and evolution.

What makes the decision of who has it or not? Humanity in general. And we do not agree in too many things.

Everything in the skull and spinal chord, basically. Possibly other parts of the neurological network: ganglia cannot be ignored, the intense little processors they can be.

In short: the network seems to do consciousness. The individual components? Nope. You can start subtracting or damaging components and the whole system can compensate to an extent and keep on ticking (altered, but ticking), but take too many away, and *poof*.

And, before you ask: there is no clear line between human and animal self-awareness or consciousness. Whatever creationists and hunters would like to say. So, the calamari was probably downright terrified and knew damn well what was going to happen to it and had a pretty good idea as to what "dead" meant in relation to it before it got to your plate... even if it didn't know the specifics of a "deep fat fryer". Squid are quite nifty in the thought department.

edited 24th Nov '15 8:03:41 AM by Euodiachloris

Wait, hold on. Are we discussing the conscience or consciousness? The first is about personal ethics, the second is another term for self-awareness.

edited 24th Nov '15 11:08:33 AM by DeMarquis

Given the whole interconnected ball of confusion that is consciousness, self-awareness, group-awareness, empathy and conscience all seem to be a bunch of feedback loops... I don't think it rightly matters.

It's not for nothing most of the candidates for high order levels of consciousness are social or semi-social critters. Having said that, I'm not convinced a hive of bees or nest of ants or termites doesn't occasionally mull over the correct or incorrect nature of actions.

Although, I very much doubt a mantis shrimp has a conscience. Intelligent and self-aware they may be to a shocking extent for a crustacean that size, but... Nah.

You know. Mantis shrimps punch pretty hard. Why would you ever want to antagonize them, Euo? Even if they ARE dumb, I would not antagonize dumb things that could PUNCH YOU TO PAINFUL DEATH.

This is how dumb movies a la birdemic start!

I watched the movie with the lowest expectations possible.

It still managed to surpass my expectations.

Which movie are we referencing here?

Birdemic.

A question for a short story of mine.

I got a character who contemplates suicide, due to depression primarily caused by insecurity (he's a bit of black sheep in his family) and feeling of loss of purpose in life.

Just when he was about to jump off from his apartment (which is his 5th suicide attempt, btw) he gets a call. His beloved sister, a single mother and the only one in his family who cared about him, died and he was the only living relative alive capable of taking care of her child.

Now, would this be enough to motivate the man to live on?

What I'm worrying is that would a five year old girl be safe under a man who's clearly going through a very severe depression? He does have a very soft spot for children, by the way.