Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (207562)	11/3/2006 1:32:51 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A lot of research has shown that people favor those who literally look similar to themselves. Skin color is perhaps the ultimate dissimilarity indicator. The question is the degree to which a person is susceptible to this influence and how one reacts to it. I know of few other studies comparing pro-Bush and anti-Bush folk. In one study the subjects were hooked up to brain scanners and were shown images of 9/11. pro-Bush people felt anger and hate, the anti-Bush subjects felt pain and fear (imo, empathy). In another major academic study (this one social) researchers investigated over 50 years of conservative movements around the globe. Again the difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" were not so much what/how they were but the degree of emotions/beliefs. Compared to liberals, conservatives had a much more black and white view of the world, an acceptance of inequality, and more difficulty dealing with ambiguities. Keep in mind that no one likes ambiguity and everyone wishes they were "more equal" than others, but the main issue is the degree of these urges and how they are satisfied. Religion provides a measure of certainty in life that must be very pleasing to the conservatives.

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (207562)	11/4/2006 5:37:45 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

religion could have been invented to re enforce those survival genes. I strongly believe this. Our primate instincts are critical to survival in the jungle, but they pose distinct problems in more complex and larger societies. We have tribal societies still functioning with this core set of encodings. Our civilization started with cultures that had only oral histories and fables to pass on values. Only after writing is developed can we have the Ten Commandments written in stone on which to build a foundation of values, for example. IMO, these values were intended to improve the cohesion of the groups that followed them, thus increasing their chances of survival. I see religions as promoting the natural bonds that develop within groups, but this can sometimes leads to harmful coercion and “group think.” Certainly religion is not the only source for this tendency; nationalism will do something very similar. Religions also attempt to minimize unhelpful competition between members of the group when the tactics used to compete might end up reducing group cohesion. I see the Bible as historical and metaphorical stories that show the results of our innate behaviors: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, sloth. Usually, the stories end badly. In a reductionism, these traits reduce group cohesion because they involve either a failure to cooperate, or to compete fairly, or to minimize violence within the tribe (maybe due to extreme levels of testosterone), or to contain one’s sexuality (due to high testosterone or high estrogen). We have one toe out of the jungle and I don’t think that the filtration process (Maurice Winn’s theory) is working fast enough to address these issues. As I state in an earlier post, Christianity message was to cooperate, not be greedy (or envious or prideful) and to find an alternative to violent solutions. If sex is thrown into the mix, then we shouldn’t make it the center of our lives, but find a healthy balance. Clearly, all this is easier said than done.