• Wallows
    8.1k
    Dunno what you're saying, dude.unenlightened

    I'm saying that people aren't as malleable as any frustrated psychologist might know.
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    How many therapists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Reveal
    One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
  • Wallows
    8.1k


    Is it still a joke if it makes you sad?
  • unenlightened
    3.6k
    I'm still laughing. You can't expect much sympathy for having to have things your own way.
  • Hanover
    4.5k
    Part of me wants to say that psychology is anti-rational. I mean, if a person was exposed to trauma, abuse, and neglect, and form a resulting aversion towards risk with dealing with people, then what's wrong with that?Wallows

    If you evolve in an adverse environment, then you may be ill equipped to survive once you leave it. While your paranoia might make you particularly well equipped to survive abuse, it's going to limit you once you're freed of the abuse.

    There's a native American tribe in the southwest US that is known to be the most obese and diabetic population on the planet. They evolved in the desert, deprived of a predictable source of food. Their bodies became super-efficient at storing energy, but they now live in a land of plenty, so they just keep getting fatter and fatter.
  • Wallows
    8.1k
    If you evolve in an adverse environment, then you may be ill equipped to survive once you leave it.Hanover

    That's actually quite paradoxical. If your aware of social Darwinism along with conservative sentiment that statement doesn't contrive with those doctrines.
  • Hanover
    4.5k
    That's actually quite paradoxical. If your aware of social Darwinism along with conservative sentiment that statement doesn't contrive with those doctrines.Wallows

    It's a false dichotomy to require that I either accept we are either (1) entirely products of our environment and genetics or (2) entirely products of our choices. The conservative position is no more #2 than is the liberal position is #1. To accept #1 is to deny free will of any sort. To accept #2 is to pretend I could fly if I just chose to.

    My position is that our environment and our genetics shape us, offer us all sorts of benefits and challenges, and define us is some real ways. I don't discount though the power of the will, whatever it is, that propels some of the the struggling to greatness and some with so many privileges to failure. Good choices and bad choices matter, including refusing to take the steps needed to move you out of your misery.

    I suppose I'm lucky I can eat a hamburger and not gain the weight that some Native Americans do, but it's not a foregone conclusion that I won't get fat and some of the Native Americans I spoke of won't be thin. Choices matter.
  • csalisbury
    1.7k
    I was thinking more about Das Man, or the notion that there's a one-size-fits-all sanity. I don't think you should continue shaming people with a re-engineered purpose. That wouldn't make much sense.frank

    You're right.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.