Was She Evil?

[meerkat stew]

The anterior cingulate loses it's rudder capabilities when faced with an over stimulated amygdala.

 

That's fine, mentally ill people judged clinically insane should get the help they need, and should be segregated. The rest of us are responsible for our actions.

 

Moreover, tell us conclusively to a point of scientific fact that A) the described functions are not shifted around to other areas in the cerebral cortex if there is a problem in a certain area, and B) that the structures you describe are solely responsible for the functions that you attribute to them to the exclusion of other areas of the cortex.

 

But even if the above were the case, analysis that emphasizes biological factors to the exclusion of social and cultural factors in estimating tendencies towards or difficulty in making ethical choices is faulty analysis IMO.

[Fay]

Of course, few are willing to accept the idea that all our tendencies are based in neurology, because a) that writes off everything they've been taught about pop psychology as witch doctor pseudoscience; and b) it brings up a lot of questions about what society is supposed to do with "bad" people. Do we let A-holes get away with doing bad things because they're wired that way? No one wants that. Do we punish them for a thing they can't really help doing? That has uncomfortable implications for how we should treat, say, schizophrenics or retarded people. Do we put mass murderers to death? That would clearly be eugenics. Even locking them away for life would be eugenics, since they can't reproduce in prison. Genetic bases have been found for everything from criminality to bipolar disorder. To keep punishing a biological defect, we would have to come to terms with the notion that eugenics is OK. See? No one wants to open up this can of worms.

 

You could say that if someone understands at all the difference between right and wrong, they have to follow it no matter how difficult it is for them, but that sounds like the equivalent of "We're banning wheelchairs for everyone who isn't missing both their legs. If you have two legs and are able to move them in the slightest, you will be expected to walk with no assistance even if your knees are likely to buckle within a few paces. Don't like it? Tough."

[Simon Attwood]

All very valid points in the resistance to the modern mind sciences, Fay

Genetic bases have been found for everything from criminality to bipolar disorder.

 

It's not all genetics, though; get yourself a copy of "Why Love Matters; How Affection Shapes a Baby's Brain".

[SadandConfusedWA]

All very valid points in the resistance to the modern mind sciences, Fay

 

It's not all genetics, though; get yourself a copy of "Why Love Matters; How Affection Shapes a Baby's Brain".

 

How do I explain my own hard core issues then? I got plenty of love as a baby from both parents and still do.

[Simon Attwood]

How do I explain my own hard core issues then? I got plenty of love as a baby from both parents and still do.

 

 

The bit where I say "it's not all about genetics", doesn't discount at all that genetics may be a part of the equation, but the line between genetics and nurture is not so easy to set, because not only are genetics passed down from family to family, but so are behavioural patterns and these are learnt. Some research that may have pointed towards genetics, may be flawed for this reason.

 

you may remember being loved, you may have been told, before you remembered that you have been loved. You may have been told stories of how you had been loved. But if there was a period of extreme trauma for your mother while you were in the womb, then her high cortisol levels would have been passed on to your developing brain, altering it's development. Or if it was a traumatic birth. Or, if, before your hippocampus fully developed and you started to be able to develop retrievable memories, there might have been a traumatic period in your infancy that caused high cortisol levels in your still developing brain. Prior to the hippocampus developing the ability to store retrievable memories (around the age of 3-4 years), memories are stored in the amygdala based upon how much anxiety, stress or fear they caused.

[meerkat stew]

That would clearly be eugenics.

 

You need to drop the "eugenics" line, and the courses of the professor who is feeding you that. Trying to fit the death penalty into some societal eugenics analysis for the purpose of comparing it to real historical eugnenics issues or racism or whatever is inapt. If anything, the U.S. encourages rampant reproduction of faulty human beings by forcing taxpayers to pay for the upkeep of the offspring instead of legislating birth control or even sterility past a certain point of reproductive profligacy.

 

The death penalty is about a certain communal standard of social justice, not social engineering, whether or not you agree with the underpinnings.

 

You could say that if someone understands at all the difference between right and wrong, they have to follow it no matter how difficult it is for them, but that sounds like the equivalent of "We're banning wheelchairs for everyone who isn't missing both their legs. If you have two legs and are able to move them in the slightest, you will be expected to walk with no assistance even if your knees are likely to buckle within a few paces. Don't like it? Tough."

 

Let's try a different tack. I assert that 90% of the bad actions posted about here in ongoing or failed relationships are merely a product of human selfishness, impulsiveness and cupidity among other character flaws, not biological factors.

 

My assertion is founded on the fact that most of the bad actors in question have no trouble doing the right thing in other aspects of their lives, at work, interacting with friends and family in ethical ways, in their community, school, where behavior is more externally scrutinized and social consequences of bad actions more dire. Romantic relationships are usually least subject to communal mores, scrutiny and penalties among all the social relations in a given person's life. People are more prone to act badly when they are less likely to be held accountable for their actions.

 

If it were the case that these people acted badly merely due to biology, they would presumably act just as badly in the more communal aspects of their lives. Since they do not generally act just as badly in other areas of their lives, there is a presumption against biology being a primary factor in choosing to do right or wrong among the general population.

 

Feel free to rebut the presumption.

[Simon Attwood]

Let's try a different tack. I assert that 90% of the bad actions posted about here in ongoing or failed relationships are merely a product of human selfishness, impulsiveness and cupidity among other character flaws, not biological factors.

 

We are biological organisms and these character flaws you speak of are predominatly influenced by our biology. Our biology is still being developed both in the womb and in infancy. In fact, going back to your earlier post regarding other brain parts being able to compensate or fill in for the roles that damaged parts are no longer able to perform, yes, there is some evidence for this. So our biology may constantly be in a state of flux. Incidents of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder certainly point to traumatic experiences leading to a restructuring of the brain and causing it's symptoms. There is plenty of research out there to show that our traumatic experiences affect our biology and the balance of neurotransmitters such as cortisol, serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, etc. These can be thrown out of wack, either temporarily, or in the case of PTSD, permanently. There is also a fare body of work that suggests that many of the more serious mental illnesses could have roots in an imbalance in the HPA Axis

 

 

My assertion is founded on the fact that most of the bad actors in question have no trouble doing the right thing in other aspects of their lives, at work, interacting with friends and family in ethical ways, in their community, school, where behavior is more externally scrutinized and social consequences of bad actions more dire. Romantic relationships are usually least subject to communal mores, scrutiny and penalties among all the social relations in a given person's life. People are more prone to act badly when they are less likely to be held accountable for their actions.

 

If it were the case that these people acted badly merely due to biology, they would presumably act just as badly in the more communal aspects of their lives. Since they do not generally act just as badly in other areas of their lives, there is a presumption against biology being a primary factor in choosing to do right or wrong among the general population.

 

Feel free to rebut the presumption.

 

The biology in question is the corticol system. It over stimulates the amygdala so that, where something causes anxiety, the fight or flight system kicks in. The amygdala hijacks the organism including higher brain functions. It's not a very smart part of the brain, given that it's phylogeny goes back to prior incarnations of the species, yet it is perfectly positioned to take over the organism at times of stress. It's myopic view of the world means it has to find a simple locatable cause for the anxiety, yet the organism itself knows it has to function in society to survive. It may function with perfect ethics towards it's environment and experiences when not dealing directly with the target of blame for the anxiety, but then, when confronted with the thing it has told itself is causing it's anxiety, it becomes irrational and illogical, and like an animal in fight or flight mode, either tries to attack or escape it's perceived persecutor. In relationships, the most convenient target for this projection is inevitably the partner. It focuses the blame squarely on the partner and holds on to this blame with the tenacity of a bull terrier.

 

I would not normally feel compelled to respond to such dogmatism and i won't carry this discussion further with you for the reason that you have fixed your dogma and will defend it, so I'd be wasting any further typing.

 

If I was asked by someone to recommend 4 books that would best contradict your dogma, I would suggest;

 

Daniel Goleman, "Vital Lies, Simple Truths; the psychology of self deception"

Sue Gerhardt, "Why Love Matters; how affection shapes a babies brain"

Richard P Bentall, "Madness Explained; psychosis and human nature" (you will particularly interested in his view of DSM IV and it's predecessors, and soon to be released successor)

And Cordelia Fine, "A Mind of It's Own; how your brain distorts and deceives"

 

You can take the suggestions or leave it, it's up to you, but if you do choose to read one or all of the above, read with out prejudice and you may learn something that challenges your current dogmatic position.

[wishing4thefuture]

So, I've pieced together the details of my recent breakup, and I want to poll the folks of the dating forum on the "dating ethics" of the situation I was subjected to.

 

Before my GF and I began dating, she had set up an account on an internet dating site. After one month of searching through guys, she finally decided on dating me. When she made that decision, she e-mail all the guys she had been chatting with and told them she was leaving the site -- but they could write if they wanted to as "friends".

 

Last week, she met up with one of the guys she had been chatting with at a music festival. Just them, hanging out for four days, which is when she fell in love with him and then left me this Monday.

 

So, was it in anyway "alright" for her to sneak behind my back (she told me she was going to the festival the day before she left) to this event to deliberately meet up with a guy who had contacted her on a dating site?

 

What say you, ladies and gentlemen?

http://tinychat.com/myrelationship

 

How do you feel? If you don't like it, don't do it to someone else. Learn from the situation and improve yourself by letting her decisions be her decisions. It must have hurt.

 

Here, I'll say it with you, "Yowch!"

 

Okay, so you know that you don't want to do that to someone else. You also are not likely to ever be in a relationship with someone exactly like her again so even if something similar happens, that will never happen to you again.

 

It sounds like you "dodged a magic bullet" on this one! Imagine if you'd been dating for much longer and the same thing happened! When people write themselves out of your life it's usually for the best. That doesn't mean they were cool to do it, just that wherever your at now is where you need to focus on!

[meerkat stew]

dogmatism, dogma, dogma, dogmatic

 

Is "dogma" what they are calling "scientifically accepted" these days as opposed to politically motivated "research" that seeks to characterize us as automaton victims of our bad ole brains?

 

You didn't deal at all satisfactorily with my simple contention that if biological factors are really so much more important in normative decisionmaking among sane human beings, that there would be less variation between highly scrutinized normative decisions and those not as highly scrutinized. In other words, if biology controls, then bad actors would tend to act badly regardless of level of communal scrutiny. Stating that the reason for non-uniformity in choices made is due to some triggering person addresses a "toenail's worth" of the point I'm making.

[StalledGirl]

I don't know about this thread because i'd have a problem with a partner keeping in touch with people they had met on a dating site.

They hadn't met so it's not like you could say "they are friends now because they aren't compatible". I don't agree with the modern idea of having lots of opposite sex friend , it tends to lead to trouble.

There's a type of woman who keeps male friends as "backup" , too.