Fran

What's he going to do when he wakes up??? Or in other words, how's he going to get out of that one?

I found the following article by Richard Dawkins (his book, the Blind Watchmaker, also addresses this subject) and Jerry Coyne to be very useful. I looked it up whilst doing research for a psychology assignment of all things. He quotes J B S Haldane, who pointed out that just one anomaly in the fossil record, such as finding a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era, would disprove the theory of evolution. However, none have been found. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/sto...1559743,00.html

Hurray! It's good to know that I'm not the only one :thumbsup:

Doctor Who is definitely my all-time favourite programme. Having grown-up watching it from behind the sofa; I was overjoyed that they brought it back in 2005. [it's pitched at family viewing.] Why do I like Doctor Who? A larger-than-life hero (the Doctor) who travels in time and space (back in 1963 when it first came out, time-travel was still considered possible), and saves the world using just his brains, guts, heart, relationship-skills and a sonic screwdriver. It's a positive, optimistic programme with usually a happy-ending. It has some memorable monsters - daleks and cybermen being the ones most people know. The Doctor, being a Timelord and not a human, can regenerate whenever a new actor replaces the old one, which is clever way of avoiding continuity problems. Each new Doctor has a different personality. In the new series, the Doctor's companions are transformed by their time spent travelling with him, i.e. he has an overall positive effect on them. His 'space ship', the TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimension In Space) is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside The cast, crew and writers for Doctor Who all love the programme and this comes across in the episodes. It's not gratuitously violent.

Derren Brown went to a London premier psychic training college to do some filming for his very first UK TV programme (2000/01). The idea being that it would show two psychics giving a reading to a subject and then Derren would give his own, non-psychic reading to the same subject, which would be more accurate (all cold-reading and watching body-language skills). Unfortunately, they could not use the footage, because this was what the psychics came up with: PSYCHIC: I sense that you live on your own, or you share a place. SUBJECT: Erm... PSYCHIC: Yes, definitely on your own, or with other people. SUBJECT: Can you be more specific? [PSYCHIC] INSTRUCTOR (angrily interjecting): Do you live alone or share a place? It must be one or the other! SUBJECT (embarrassed): Well, I kind of live with my parents. INSTRUCTOR (snapping): Well, then, that's with other people, isn't it? Don't just sit there and not answer, it blocks the energy. From the book: 'Tricks of the Mind' by Derren Brown. Very funny and one of the chapters is a great and entertaining lesson on how to reason.

I hope Chris heals quickly and well. I have never spoken/corresponded with Chris; but a late friend of mine, Chris Tame, spoke highly of him.

I've found a couple of studies which suggest a link between magnesium deficiency and depression. My personal experience of eating foods high in magnesium and taking supplements is that it has stabilised my mood (not very scientific I know, but I'm glad it's worked). Judging by the type of foods that are magnesium-rich, I wonder if a lot of people are magnesium deficient. The recommended daily amount is 400mg. Foods rich in magnesium are: Halibut Nuts Spinach and other dark green leafy vegetables Wholegrains Legumes Yogurt http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...;indexed=google http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=15567428 The second link made me think, because if magnesium deficiency is a cause of depression and this isn't determined before prescribing anti-depressants; then it would be like giving drugs to treat the symptoms of Beriberi (Thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency).

Thanks for the insights Mike. Not being a geek myself, I like learning about this kind of stuff.

You folks really think this? The lady is a highly regarded Muslim and has taught Islam at the University of Chicago. She is being published by an official Islamic publisher. Do you know of other people with similar credentials, say, any other authors of Kazi who have been killed or had fatwas issued against them? Take a look at their catalog and see where she is being published. That house would not publish a book if they thought it was blasphemy. Rushdie is a whole other animal to the Islamic culture. He is an outsider. Michael Great. That is good news and leaves me hopeful.

Tragically she may still be killed by Muslims who are none too happy with this interpretation. I agree though that it is possibly sowing a seed for liberation. Here's hoping things start to improve.

You may care to read 'Learned Optimism' by Martin Seligman. He includes a 'cheat-proof' optimist test and so you could test to see how optimistic you are. He's one of the Positive Psychology researchers - studying what simple actions people can take on a day-to-day basis that are most likely to lead to happiness. A friend highly recommended the book to me. According to Seligman, optimists are far more likely to succeed in life than pessimists and they're much happier. There are no guarantees, of course, but you are raising your odds. I've found that if I don't get the grades or similar that I was hoping for, the surest way for me to succeed in the future is to figure out where I went wrong and learn from my mistakes. Bemoaning the harshness of the world and being a drama queen about it never helped me :getlost: I can tell you that having once been an extreme pessimist to now being a 'moderate optimist' (according to the test); life sure is more fun with an optimist's slant on the world.

Thanks Judith, that is what I'm referring to. NB's books certainly have helped, but I didn't read them for many years after first discovering Rand. Mainly because LP had painted him as 'evil' and it would have been tantamount to heresy to read his stuff - sad really, I'm the one who missed out. Although I am grateful for the understanding and learning that I've gotten from NB's books, like you said, much still remains to be done and his work only meets some of my needs. Fran P.S. you're welcome about the MBTI explanation.

My point was that it doesn't give me the clarity and guidance in understanding what my values are. What makes one person happy would make another person miserable. I am deliriously happy drawing and painting, another person would hate this. The Objectivist literature doesn't seem to offer anything, in the way of a practical nature, in helping me to discover those things that bring me happiness - to figure these things out I had to look elsewhere.

Hi Laure I remember the 'pervasive fog' that you mention - never being able to get an answer that made sense. What also troubled me was that my needs for trust and integrity were not met due to altruism. I was taught to be altruistic and yet I found that this did not make my parents happy, rather it had the opposite effect, and neither could they practice altruism consistently. It became very much a case of: 'do as I say, not as I do'. I found their actions unpredictable and inconsistent; I never knew when they were going to be altruistic and when they were not. I learnt recently that you can trust people by the consistency and predictability of their actions. Thinking about two friends, one whose actions I find to be consistent and predictable and another whom I don't, I realised just how stabilising these two qualities are for me and how destabilising it is when they are missing. Fran

There's an error in your thinking. First, there should be no need to justify your wish to do this work in terms of Objectivism and ensure there's no sacrifice involved. Furthermore, saying that it's not sacrifice because you would 'love' or want to do it just introduces unfalsifiability into the equation and the discussion of whether something is selfish or altruistic becomes meaningless. In reality, like most or all of us, you do feel a desire to help those less fortunate at a cost (an acceptable cost) to yourself. This is natural, and commendable (and I'll explain why later hopefully). This DOES NOT mean this (altruism) has to be the guidepost of your life. We can and do admire altruism AND individual self-centred achievment at the same time often in the same person! It is not either/or. Both are 'good' and have their place. There is no dichotomy. Bob Hi Bob, For clarity I was expressing an area where I have gotten confused between altruism and self-interest in the past. This recently became clear for me, when I considered firstly what if anything I would get out of it, and most importantly, that 'trade' doesn't mean I have to be paid in money. What also helped was to see that I could trade in 'needs' as well. What needs of mine would be met if I help this person, because I feel great when my needs are met? I regret if my previous post impeded your discussion in some way. I'm learning a lot from this discussion and so I'm grateful to you for posting it. I'm also curious to hear your thoughts on our desire to help others. Fran

I think I understand where you are coming from and here's my response: According to evolution, men are genetically programmed to want to have sex with virtually every woman of reproductive age that they meet. But I would argue that it isn't in their best interests to do so. They would struggle to find and maintain intimate relationships, for example. I for one would not want to be in a romantic-love relationship with a man who was shagging every woman that he meets. Evolution wants women to have a baby every year from puberty onwards, but it's not in their best interests to do so. Not just for those who don't want children. Continual pregnancy and childbirth pose great risks to the mother's health and life. Not to mention her psychological well-being (bringing up children is emotionally hard work). I'm not sure that evolution could have foreseen humans being able to interrupt this. Evolution has no concept of your happiness - why should it - what evolutionary advantage does a happy person have? Happy people may live longer, but in the case of the woman, that's far beyond their reproductive age anyway. If we accept that happiness is our highest ideal, chances are that we are going to go against evolution at some point. I would therefore suggest that we have evolved in such a way that we can now question the validity of evolution as to whether it is for or against our lives. Whether we are genetically programmed to be altruistic or not, isn't the point; we are volitional animals and can consciously seek to overcome this programming if it doesn't work for us. Evolution really doesn't care about you, your happiness or your life in general; all evolution cares about is that you reproduce.

Having grown-up in a Christian household where I was taught the opposite of Rand's view; Rand's critique of altruism was the most powerful and sanity-saving piece of writing I had ever read aged 22. I know what it's like to be brought up with the belief that my life doesn't matter and I'm only here to serve others, which I found it to be a sure-fire recipe for rock-bottom self-esteem and an insidious self-hate. I was essentially taught that to do or want anything for myself was wicked, backed up with the threat that God was watching me all the time and so would know when I was thinking of myself. From my own experience, I am in overwhelming agreement with Rand's two quotes provided by Barbara. Although I have gotten confused between benevolence and altruism before, I am getting much clearer now.

Thanks for this clarity Michael. I'm thinking of doing voluntory work overseas, not out of a sense of duty or self-sacrifice because obviously I won't be paid in monetary terms; but because the kind of work being offered is something I would love to do and learn about for a few weeks or months - but wouldn't want to spend years doing. For example, I love archaeology- I don't want to go back to school and do an archaeology degree, but spending a few weeks helping out at a dig, is something I'd find fascinating. I guess this would only become self-sacrificial if I can't afford to do this financially, and would lose my house or whatever because there was no money coming in.

Like: freedom, individualism, capitalism, championing of people's virtues and seeing people as 'good' rather than 'evil', as this is the opposite of what I was brought up with (Christian doctrine of people being inherently sinful). Having a set of ethics to follow. NB's six pillars of self-esteem. Living in a real, knowable, understandable world. Dislikes: judging certain people as being evil (not just their actions), rather than their actions being a tragic expression of their unment needs. By this I mean that I dislike moralistic judgements as opposed to value judgement; i.e. judging that a person's actions will not meet my needs for trust and safety (value judgement), rather than, because my needs for trust and safety won't be met, this person is bad, wicked and evil (moralistic judgement). Also dislike: If happiness is my highest goal in life, Objectivism doesn't aid my clarity and understanding of my own inner world, nor does it provide much in the way as a practical tool as to how best meet my needs. This is possibly best illustrated with an example, from learning and using NVC (non-violent communication) I learnt that my feelings are an inner guide as to whether my needs are being met or not. These being universal needs such as visibility, understanding, trust, safety, etc. If they are being met, I feel (e.g.) happy; if they're not being met I feel (e.g.) sad. From my feelings I can work out what my need might be. If I'm feeling lonely, I probably have a need for companionship, and once I know what that need is I have a better chance of meeting it. I know when I have identified the correct need, because a part of me relaxes inside. And if I clearly express my need to other people, I have a better chance of getting that need met. Of course, no one is here to meet my needs, but I know from experience that if I am clear about what needs I will be meeting for another person, I feel much more compelled to try and meet them. This is because one of my greatest needs is to contribute to another person's well-being. I also learnt that people don't clash on the need level, they clash on the strategy level. i.e. everybody shares the same fundamental human needs, it is the strategies that they try and employ in order to meet those needs that cause conflict.

It's an abbreviation for the 'iNtuitive Thinking' temperament in Jungian/Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Jungian or Myers-Briggs personality types are split into 16 personalities, based on whether people are: Introverted or Extraverted (abbreviated to 'I' or 'E') - this is whether they are energised by being with people (E) or time spent alone (I). Sensing or iNtuitive (abbreviated to S or N) - this is how people process data; whether they like concretes and what is practical in the world (S), or like to think things up and what is possible (N). Feeling and Thinking (abbr. 'F' or 'T') - whether people are ruled by their hearts (F) or their heads (T). Judging or Perceiving (abbr. 'J' or 'P') - whether people like to be organised and plan their time, or be more spontaneous and go with the flow. From these preferences, the 16 personality types are composed, e.g. INTJ or ESFP, ENFP, ISFJ, etc. The four temperaments are NT, NF, SP and SJ. Most NTs are the rational, scientific people. NFs are more romantic idealists - the artists, writers, teachers, etc. This is a quick summary of Myers-Briggs. If you're interested in learning more, I suggest you Google Myers-Briggs - there's a ton of stuff on the web, including free tests as an aid to determining what type you are (don't take the test result as a given of your type). Keirsey is one of the big experts on this. http://www.keirsey.com/ Hope this helps? Fran

Isn't he cute! I'll look after him. We could snuggle up in bed at night and I could spend all day stroking his soft fur... [goes off into raptures brought on by thought of stroking something so cute and furry.]

Thanks for the suggestion, Ross. I haven't seen anything in Cyprus but I have been rock climbing before - does wonders for my fear of heights! Rock climbing is one of those things that I enjoy doing in a group, but wouldn't want to do on my own. I like abseiling down the best

I used to have a very poor body image and saw exercise as a kind of punishment. I hated physical education at school as it was always competitive sports which I was not skilled at. I tried going to the gym but found it tedious after only a short while. So walking has been the most consisent form of exercise I've done over the years. Since starting Tae Kwon-Do about 18 months ago, I realised something that sports fanatics have known all along - exercise doesn't have to be boring! Also, sparring seems to be the best aerobic exercise I've ever done in my entire life. I'm going to take up dancing as this is also great fun and an excellent form of exercise. I used to do Yoga as well which I loved and want to get back into. I would also like to do Pilates as this is good for my back. If I can't find classes in Cyprus then these are the kind of things that are easy to do at home - dancing in particular, as all I have to find is some music I enjoy and dance to it - nobody will be watching me, so I don't have to worry about what I look like! On realising that I'm not a competitive sports person, I can look for other sports that are more about personal achievement, rather than being in a team.

Okay Mike, I hear that you would like more responsibility towards the foetus? I would like acknowledgement that IF (for argument's sake) that 5-year old child was going to put your own life at risk and the only alternative was to kill the child, it would be called self-defence in any other circumstance.

This is one I remember from when I was a kid: Red lorry, yellow lorry. It's the yellow lorry bit that always gets me.