The Progressive ideology exposed

[Yuri Bezmenov]

What makes evolutionary psychology credible is certain behaviors are universally prevalent in any society.

 

An old friend of mine is a professor of Evolutionary Psychology at UCLA.

One of the primary things they look at is behaviors and beliefs that are constant throughout cultures and time.

[Jack]

Biological behavior is not constant.

It can be accepted as constant in present tense, considering how long evolutionary changes take. It's also consistent enough to support generalizations. It's not believed biology controls psychology, but is accepted human psychology has a biological source. Some people lack appreciation for certain fields of study, because it's impossible to be an exact science. Is that where this is going? Or is this leading to a discussion of souls and free will?

Not evolution. Environmental impact. In particular, regarding breeding rates.

I see. Different discussions then. The advent of birth control probably complicates any theory on breeding, and population growth seems to be less about breeding and more about life expectancy.

[Jack]

 What makes evolutionary psychology credible is certain behaviors are universally prevalent in any society.

The same observation is frequently cited in support of transpersonal pychology; and is consistent with most schools of psychology.  . So , no, it doesn't "make evolutionary pychology credible"  not unless you view through the lens of confirmation bias 

This is reminding me of a conversation with an old member here, who once asked the question if human intuition favored belief in god. Took the stance that the history of humans suggests it to be true. Spirituality/religion is a divided and debated area of evolutionary psychology and not fully accepted as innate, because it's difficult for some to reconcile spirituality as anything other than acquired knowledge. While transpersonal psychology appears to attempt at being a finer tuned subset field of evolutionary psychology, it only seems to stand out as different from the evolutionary psychology of religion by assigning truth to spiritual beliefs, rather than simply recognizing that humans as a whole have possibly always believed spiritual things.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Spirituality/religion is a divided and debated area of evolutionary psychology and not fully accepted as innate, because it's difficult for some to reconcile spirituality as anything other than acquired knowledge. While transpersonal psychology appears to attempt at being a finer tuned subset field of evolutionary psychology,

Evolutionary psychology is a branch that is closest tied to neuroscience and cognitive science.

From what I've seen of transpersonal psychology, it's mostly woo.

[Jack]

Spirituality/religion is a divided and debated area of evolutionary psychology and not fully accepted as innate, because it's difficult for some to reconcile spirituality as anything other than acquired knowledge. While transpersonal psychology appears to attempt at being a finer tuned subset field of evolutionary psychology,

Evolutionary psychology is a branch that is closest tied to neuroscience and cognitive science.

From what I've seen of transpersonal psychology, it's mostly woo.

While data from neuroscience is utilized, view it as more closely tied to psychology. It just maintains that certain human behaviors are so timeless and ubiquitous to be considered as evolutionary adaptations which have aided in the survival of the species. In essence, some human behaviors aren't learned behavior. Agreed on the woo. Though religion is still a branch studied in evolutionary psychology; it's just a lot more objective due to focus on the behavior rather than the details of spirituality. Some might consider them both woo. Still, have a few times considered the likelihood that the human tendency for spirituality might not need to be taught.

[Jack]

Still, have a few times considered the likelihood that the human tendency for spirituality might not need to be taught.

The reason why it's so interesting some intellectuals maintain that religion is an evolutionary adaptation, is because it's also a fundamental concept in Christianity is that all people are born with knowledge of god. *shrugs*

[Calandale]

Biological behavior is not constant.

It can be accepted as constant in present tense, considering how long evolutionary changes take. It's also consistent enough to support generalizations. It's not believed biology controls psychology, but is accepted human psychology has a biological source. Some people lack appreciation for certain fields of study, because it's impossible to be an exact science. Is that where this is going? Or is this leading to a discussion of souls and free will?

Not evolution. Environmental impact. In particular, regarding breeding rates.

I see. Different discussions then. The advent of birth control probably complicates any theory on breeding, and population growth seems to be less about breeding and more about life expectancy.

I don't think it's different. Even absent technological solutions, the breeding imperative has been historically
tampered with by behavioral changes. Homosexuality, asexuality, and other habits have arisen at key
points in societies. The core point being that there is no constant behavior.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I am very much an atheist (technically I'm a tooth-fairy atheist). But I'm pretty convinced that there is something going on in terms of an innate sense of spirituality in humans. The sense that we are interconnected somehow to something greater than ourselves could easily be explained in evolutionary terms.

[odeon]

OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.

Ignore? I do not know how you could possibly say that? I have not let his remarks float on by. I have heard them, processed them, contextualised them and made defence of him saying them? That is like the complete opposite to ignoring it.

Whenever he said shit about Father Michael, I did not laugh. There was nothing to laugh about. It was cringy but more than cringy. It was sad. Proper kind of sad. I pitied him. You know that adult that laughs off physical abuse in their childhood and creates a narrative of that is how things were back then or that it was good for them because it toughened them up or that they were really naughty and deserved it? Or that little kid who has a group of friends that all treat him like absolutely shit all the time an dhe still hangs around them thinking wrongly that they are all mates and they care and respect him? Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?

That is the kind of thing I see with Milo. Him laughing and trying to normalise NOT others experiences BUT his own experience. He is okay. He is NOT a victim. He wanted it and it was fine with him and he was not taken advantage of. He is fine. Sometimes it is okay. Because it was okay with him. It must be if he is not a victim. Have another laugh. Make another self-depreciating joke.

But he is a victim. I do not know what he was more scared of. Recognising it himself or other people to clue on to the fact that he was a victim. I suspect the latter. He was a victim. Always was. It does not detract from other stuff he says necessarily but in these things it is pretty easy for anyone to contextualise exactly what happened and be able to NOT accuse him of paedophila apologia. That would be ignorant at absolute best and immoral at worst.

So, no, I far from ignored what he said.

Reread what I wrote.

I did

I'm trying to be charitable here but if you insist: you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Jack]

I am very much an atheist (technically I'm a tooth-fairy atheist). But I'm pretty convinced that there is something going on in terms of an innate sense of spirituality in humans. The sense that we are interconnected somehow to something greater than ourselves could easily be explained in evolutionary terms.

Agreed. It's one of those constant behaviors.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I am very much an atheist (technically I'm a tooth-fairy atheist). But I'm pretty convinced that there is something going on in terms of an innate sense of spirituality in humans. The sense that we are interconnected somehow to something greater than ourselves could easily be explained in evolutionary terms.

Agreed. It's one of those constant behaviors.

Almost constant. There have apparently been rare instances of remote tribes whose people do not appear to believe in God/s and an afterlife.

It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real. I would have thought it would lead to the opposite conclusion.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

There have apparently been rare instances of remote tribes whose people do not appear to believe in God/s and an afterlife.

Can you cite any examples? It's my understanding that all of these remote tribes, at bare minimum, believe in some form of animism or pantheism.

It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real. I would have thought it would lead to the opposite conclusion.

I agree, and nowhere is this more evident than in the SJW/PC wing of the atheist and skeptical movement. Social Justice Intersectionality has become their new dogmatic religion.

[Walkie]

It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real.

As Jung pointed out, that makes it a real psychological object, worthy of serious study as such. This was a big impovement on Freud's simplistic, ultra- reductionist notion that it was all about sublimated sexuality.

However,  when you ask the question how objectively "real" these spritual objects such as God are? then you get into very murky waters; much the same murky waters that modern physicists find themselves in. eg, one's definition of objective reality inevitably shifts towards the "unreal"  (or non-physical) .  And there's and increasing  difficulty with  disentangling "objective" and "subjective"

Still, if just dip a toe into those murky waters , it quicky  becomes  evident that our beliefs  about "God" and such are so highlly subjective as to reveal a great more about the believer than they do about this objective persence called God (if such exists) . A result that the atheist can reasonably  crow about!

That kinda chimes with Jesus' oft-ignored declaration that the "kindom of Heaven is within you", methinks.  That is:  buried under so very much subjective rubbish, that you'd have to practicallypeel away your entire personality to find it.  Though that wouldn't necessarilyy make it unreal . Could be super-real instead, couldn't it?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

There have apparently been rare instances of remote tribes whose people do not appear to believe in God/s and an afterlife.

Can you cite any examples? It's my understanding that all of these remote tribes, at bare minimum, believe in some form of animism or pantheism.

There are the Pirahã people who apparently do not believe in God/s, but they do believe in spirits which can take on the form of animals. So there is some level of woo involved. I remember seeing a documentary on these people a few years ago, a white dude was trying to explain to a Pirahã man why he believed in Jesus and God and the Pirahã man just laughed at him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3

The following is interesting, it popped up when I was googling the Pirahã. I've got my doubts seeing as it is apparently based on a single source.

https://www.thoughtco.com/atheism-and-agnosticism-s2-248347

Will Durant has done a great service by preserving information about skeptical attitudes towards religion and theism from so-called "primitive," non-European cultures. I have not been able to find this information elsewhere and it runs contrary to common assumptions. If religion can be defined as the worship of supernatural forces — an inadequate definition, but one which serves for most purposes — then it must be admitted that some cultures have little or no religion at all.

As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

It's funny how some people seem to think that because we have an innate tendency to believe in spiritual shit then that makes it more likely to be real. I would have thought it would lead to the opposite conclusion.

I agree, and nowhere is this more evident than in the SJW/PC wing of the atheist and skeptical movement. Social Justice Intersectionality has become their new dogmatic religion.

Go on, tell us how you really feel about SJWs.

I can't really see how believing in social justice is a religion.