|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2002 : 15:18:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
These are your beliefs about anger, and do not necessarily represent facts about anger.
Am I to take that to mean that your beliefs do represent facts and are not really signs of insecurity?
quote:
Just because someone is irrational, does not mean that there is something psychologically wrong with them.
Yes, it does.
quote:
Just as when someone does something that I consider "stupid" does not make them a moron, or when they do something that I consider "insane" does not mean that they have a medical problem.
So you are saying that your opinion isn't valid? I already guessed that.
quote:
Your beliefs about what makes you a "man" are what makes you angry and not what other people do.
Thank you Oprah, your pop psychology. I'm glad that you won't get angry if I snicker at you.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 15:35:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
These are your beliefs about anger, and do not necessarily represent facts about anger.
Am I to take that to mean that your beliefs do represent facts and are not really signs of insecurity?
Now you understand.
quote:
quote:
Just because someone is irrational, does not mean that there is something psychologically wrong with them.
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't.
quote:
quote:
Just as when someone does something that I consider "stupid" does not make them a moron, or when they do something that I consider "insane" does not mean that they have a medical problem.
So you are saying that your opinion isn't valid? I already guessed that.
Great comeback.
quote:
quote:
Your beliefs about what makes you a "man" are what makes you angry and not what other people do.
Thank you Oprah, your pop psychology. I'm glad that you won't get angry if I snicker at you.
Great comeback.
Actually, I do get angry. I just realize that it does not make me right or wrong, just temporarily irrational. Anger is not a sign of a "man" or "maturity" but mistaken beliefs.
No, not even pop psychology. Just some worthless observations. Maybe even completely wrong. Glad you'll be angry no matter what I do.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 16:27:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[
Am I to take that to mean that your beliefs do represent facts and are not really signs of insecurity?
Now you understand.
quote:
quote:
Just because someone is irrational, does not mean that there is something psychologically wrong with them.
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't.
quote:
quote:
Just as when someone does something that I consider "stupid" does not make them a moron, or when they do something that I consider "insane" does not mean that they have a medical problem.
So you are saying that your opinion isn't valid? I already guessed that.
Great comeback.
quote:
[quote]
Glad you'll be angry no matter what I do.
No mater what you do? Poor baby, is everyone picking on you? Aaaah.
My angry is purely conditional. Some people deserve it from me, and I welcome it from some others. I can assure you it is far from irrational.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 16:44:07 [Permalink]
|
No. Nothing irrational about you.
quote:
No mater what you do? Poor baby, is everyone picking on you? Aaaah.
My angry is purely conditional. Some people deserve it from me, and I welcome it from some others. I can assure you it is far from irrational.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 16:59:22 [Permalink]
|
This thread has taken an interesting turn.
Tim, you probably shouldn't get your shorts in a knot over this dude you work with who is just putting in time until The Lawrd Awmighty come for him. I kinda feel sorry for the poor sap, myself. I mean, what a way to live, eh? How empty his life must be for him to need salvation from it so soon.
I understand how it can be frustrating though.
Anger? Gorgo, and Slater, you two look like you're having fun with that topic. Anger is a response to a threat. It is our modern derivative of the fight or flight response when we can't fight or flee.
Not all of us have to go Hockey Dad on the person or thing who causes us to perceive a threat. Our big brain helps us deal with the perceived threat in what we best judge to be a socially acceptable manner given the conditions surrounding the occurrence. And sometimes, we get too juiced with adreanaline (which gets dumped into our blood stream as part of the fight or flight response) to think straight.
Just because we're hypnotized, that don't mean we can't dance. - Tonio K. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 17:37:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This thread has taken an interesting turn.
Tim, you probably shouldn't get your shorts in a knot over this dude you work with who is just putting in time until The Lawrd Awmighty come for him. I kinda feel sorry for the poor sap, myself. I mean, what a way to live, eh? How empty his life must be for him to need salvation from it so soon.
Saying shouldn't really doesn't stop anything, though does it? Learning to look at things differently does. Don't you think?
quote:
I understand how it can be frustrating though.
Anger? Gorgo, and Slater, you two look like you're having fun with that topic. Anger is a response to a threat. It is our modern derivative of the fight or flight response when we can't fight or flee.
Yes, we're just having fun. I spit at Slater at an airport once, and it turned him on.
Seriously, though, I don't think it's all that automatic. It's more of a cultural thing. Slater said it. You're not a "man" if you don't get angry about certain things. It's more about us thinking that anger solves problems. He said people "deserve" his anger, as though his anger did something to someone other than himself and that somehow fixed something. He's really insulted that someone might try to take his anger away from him. I'm not making fun of him, again, just observing.
quote:
Not all of us have to go Hockey Dad on the person or thing who causes us to perceive a threat. Our big brain helps us deal with the perceived threat in what we best judge to be a socially acceptable manner given the conditions surrounding the occurrence. And sometimes, we get too juiced with adreanaline (which gets dumped into our blood stream as part of the fight or flight response) to think straight.
Sure, and I really don't mean to pick on Mr. Slater or Barney and Fred. I'm just throwing out some wild observations.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 18:17:52 [Permalink]
|
That's right, Gorgo. Saying it doesn't really help. I was trying to give Tim a different perspective, so that he might not get in such a state. What say you, Tim? Does it help?
I have to agree with Slater, though, that you're not a mammal if you don't get angry. I'm talking the purely physiological sense, here, with chemical responses to perceived threats. I think we could probably extend it to the whole kingdom (as in phylum, class, etc) rather than just limiting it to us mammals.
"Deserving of anger"....Hmmmm..... Interesting concept. In mulling it over, I'm reminded that police can use "reasonable force", but that is separate from anger. Anger, therefore, would be taking it farther than using "reasonable force". Perhaps one takes it farther as a warning not to do it again? Kind of a social status aspect to self preservation? The smaller monkeys go "You better listen to Jim. If you don't, MAN he gets pissed. Remember when he ripped Terence in half for burping?" Thus Jim, the big monkey, gets what he wants with minimum effort, saving more energy to devote to screwing and food gathering, thus his genes propogate and he's healthier and lives longer.
In this case, Jim must make sure there are no bigger monkeys around, and that the smaller monkeys don't gang up on him.
But in todays society, there are always bigger monkeys and ones that will gang up on you, so anger becomes less of a survival benefit. In fact, if there are enough civilized big monkeys, they will use "reasonable force" to limit Jim's survival and genetic propogation.
We're still hardwired to get angry, I'd say, but we're learning to live with that.
Just because we're hypnotized, that don't mean we can't dance. - Tonio K. |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 18:19:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What is your definition of "moron?" Is there some clinical definition that I'm not aware of? Are you saying that you know the IQ of these people?
My word, a lot went on here while I was at work. Has the Ministry of Truth ordered that we must, henceforth and forever, use the word "moron" only in a clinical sense, as defining a certain IQ range (below 20 if I remember correctly)? No matter, I don't recognize their authority anyway, I will use it in the generic sense that is widely understood by users of the internet. Call the Thought Police if you don't like it.
(alternate response) As Director* of the newly established Skeptic Friends Morology Clinic, I hereby define a "moron" as any person whose actions and opinions are a threat to secular society and, by extension, to the survival of the human race.
*self-appointed of course.
As for my motives, you haven't answered my questions, so why should I answer yours? Actually, there is a very good reason for me to answer them, namely, that I actually have an answer. My previous 2 messages in this string spell out the reasons for my personal opposition to irrational beliefs, this being the danger they present to human survival. At the risk of further belaboring the obvious, "moron of the year" is an expression of that opposition. If you think my neurotic insecurity is a better explanation, then please specify how you know this. You blandly stated this claim as fact despite the lame disguise of a generalization. The latter device, incidentally, is a favorite of pompous undergrads. The burden of evidence is yours. Go ahead, argue with me about my own life, my own feelings, and the contents of my own mind.
Anger is not necessarily irrational. As Badger has pointed out, it is a response to a threat. It serves an evolutionary purpose or it would not exist. The threat here is very great, and the anger and hostility it generates should be proportional. For rational people; as opposed to, say, terrorists and their apologists; anger and violence are not synonymous. There are other ways of expressing it, and, more to the point, of confronting the threat that causes it.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980.
Edited by - piltdown on 01/10/2002 18:23:44 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 19:44:50 [Permalink]
|
So the only reason to call other people "morons" is to insult. The only reason to insult is to attempt to build yourself up. Case closed. The rest of your post is bluster. I hereby define people who use the term "moron" as a threat to society. Those who label others in such a manner stop all thought, such as those who use the term "evil." He's "evil" so we don't have to think at all, just destroy whatever's in front of us. Nonsense.
You wish to point out those with irrational beliefs, then it is only necessary to do so.
You're right. It doesn't matter if I don't like it. Like you, I'm only observing that which I consider irrational. Are you now the Ministry of Truth and the Thought Police that will stop me from making my equally irrational observations? Will you stoop to the same ad hominem attacks on me that you do to others?
If you're just having fun, so what? I don't care. I just noted that it is often the case in similar circumstances that certain tendencies occur. May not be the facts in your case. I didn't mention your name. I didn't mention anyone else's names. I just made a harmless observation just for fun. This is a discussion forum not a legislative assembly.
Anger is never rational. Determination is often confused with anger. It's not necessary to be angry, often not very beneficial to be angry to physically fight. Especially with weapons. Only necessary to be resolute.
Again, this is just my stupid opinion. Which is worth no more than yours or anyone else's, but no less.
quote:
My word, a lot went on here while I was at work. Has the Ministry of Truth ordered that
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 01/10/2002 19:47:00 |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 20:08:08 [Permalink]
|
Skeptic 1. One whos instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees
with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
It's the primary meaning of the word, which first attracted me to SFN, although most posters seem to identify with its secondary meaning. Whichever meaning you align with, the other position is at the least, understandable. Although anger does seem to easily arise here, the posts are for the most part, articulate. And even in a resort to ridicule, a chuckle can usually be found.., uh, except when aimed at me. It keeps the topics interesting and worth the reading IMO.
Being somewhat agnostic, tends to 'color' me approach to most all questions. Dunno if "gap filling" is the attempt of both approaches as was stated, science vs faith, as it is 'coping' with the gaps. Don't accept that black/white premise, in dealing with the reality of the universe, have resorted to both. The more me has learned of this reality, the stronger my faith has grown, that something is at work here, yet, the knowledge science provides, is my rock, a solid reference in navigating the turbulent sea of ideas. When the table is near empty, it seems a reasonable strategy to me, to place one's faith in a god, or those, who deal with such things, while putting one's own effort into filling the belly.
Anger is useful in a fight, it can seem to give one extra energy, and mask pain, but is hardly useful in a battle of ideas. So why does me get so mad? *L* What seems to consistently get me dander up, is a perceived attitude of 'smug certainty,' when IMO, subjectively, a reasonable question remains. An air of, "My position is so superior, any deviation is an act of stupidity," even whem me may agree with the intrinsic point taken. *L* Alas, such is the state of me own character weaknesses.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 21:37:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Anger is never rational. Determination is often confused with anger. It's not necessary to be angry, often not very beneficial to be angry to physically fight. Especially with weapons. Only necessary to be resolute.
I don't mean to belittle, but this is most silly. Your knowledge of brain physiology is woefully incomplete. I taught a Physiological Psych class as an undergrad and I have neither heard nor read anything that would support these conclusions, much less as steadfast as you make them here. You seem to have found the specific delimiting lines between emotions in order to make this statement: "Determination is often confused with anger." If you don't mean to imply that these are mutually exclusive feelings, then mea culpa, but it sure appears that you are saying one can't be both determined and angry, which isn't even a logically supported statement, much less an experimentally supported one.
You seem to have the mistaken impression that emotions are entirely consciously controllable. I'd suggest you get a good book about the limbic system and we can discuss further.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 03:21:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So the only reason to call other people "morons" is to insult. The only reason to insult is to attempt to build yourself up. Case closed.
And on whose authority is this pronouncement made? It's pretty silly, not to mention dishonest, to put words in my mouth when the real words are still there for all to see.
quote:
The rest of your post is bluster.
Frivolous in part, when I try to define terms to suit myself.
quote:
I hereby define people who use the term "moron" as a threat to society.
You might be right. I am a threat to whatever segment of society finds that irrationality serves its purposes. I submit that there are many such segments, and they count as morons, regardless of their IQs, because their behavior is ultimately detrimental to the survival of the species, and therefore irrational in the broadest and most significant sense.
quote:
Those who label others in such a manner stop all thought, such as those who use the term "evil." He's "evil" so we don't have to think at all, just destroy whatever's in front of us. Nonsense.
A characterization of "evil" can also be a conclusion, arrived at by a rational process, as, for example, when Pat Buchanan referred to "these evil sanctions against Iraq." I may or may not agree, but he is not automatically irrational for saying "evil".
It is thoughtless only if no thought went into it.
And policies with which you disagree are "corporate" or "genocidal" or "violent". Opponents of the war against terror are "those who work for peace", apparently meaning that others are not interested in peace. Words like these are designed to define the terms in ways that demonize and insult and silence opposition and discusssion, which is of course, the stock in trade of the political systems in whose interest they are used.
quote:
You wish to point out those with irrational beliefs, then it is only necessary to do so.
I don't agree, at least if there is some purpose beyond declaring my affiliation with an elite group. It is necessary to gain attention for one's views, to communicate their intensity, to stimulate, and (if need be) to provoke. I thought this was common knowledge among the activist minded, as is the principle of not allowing an opponent to control the terms.
quote:
You're right. It doesn't matter if I don't like it. Like you, I'm only observing that which I consider irrational. Are you now the Ministry of Truth and the Thought Police that will stop me from making my equally irrational observations?
I don't know how I might do that. In any case, there is no Amendment X that equates criticism with an abridgement of free speech.
quote:
Will you stoop to the same ad hominem attacks on me that you do to others?
As, for example, by attributing their actions to neurosis and insecurity, ignoring the relevant possibility of a different motive?
quote:
If you're just having fun, so what? I don't care. I just noted that it is often the case in similar circumstances that certain tendencies occur. May not be the facts in your case. I didn't mention your name. I didn't mention anyone else's names. I just made a harmless observation just for fun. This is a discussion forum not a legislative assembly.
Indeed not, which is one reason I believe that the formal rules of rhetoric can be relaxed here, if not discarded entirely, in the interests of candor and free expression. It's always possible that I am acting out of insecurity or insanity or even because I hear space aliens commanding me to say these things. This would not automatically eliminate the possibility of this behavior serving a rational purpose.
quote:
Anger is never rational.
Unless, of course, one is angry at some idea or attitude or whole country that you and your ilk claim to oppose. In any case, anger is a survival characteristic, when properly controlled; and therefore rational, as several posters here have pointed out.
quote:
Determination is often confused with anger. It's not necessary to be angry, often not very beneficial to be angry to physically fight. Especially with weapons. Only necessary to be resolute.
I certainly agree with that. Anger is not useful in a non-violent confrontation for that matter, which is another reason that it might pay to make opponents angry. The other side of the coin is that anger, a visceral response, is the natural alert system for a threat to survival. It must be controlled and analyzed before the threat is met, but that doesn't make it useless. It is worth noting that violence is not always caused by anger. Violence can result from cynical manipulation or calculated greed or, sometimes, even from the simple will to survive. Recognition of a threat, and a decision to act, should not be confused with the anger that often accompanies them.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 04:25:22 [Permalink]
|
Somehow, this thread appears to have devolved into a jousting match of one-up-manship, with a side bar debate about anger. Please, carry on. It makes for a very entertaining read.
Plus, I do think that anger can serve us--even in debate. It has served me. Returning to my born again co-worker, during a couple of discussions, I lost my patience, and said a few things in anger. Well, those things needed to be said. However, normally, I would not have said them. I knew I would have hurt his feelings.
In other words, anger alowed me to be ruthless when I would not have been otherwise.
So, back to the evolution topic. Anger and ruthlessness controled, and used as a tool could certainly be beneficial in climbing the ladder to the top of the food chain. Just ask Hitler. Or Stalin. Uh, sorry...we're supposed to be skeptics, and therefore we can't communicate with the dead. Maybe, OBL would be a good alternative...ah...if he survived the bombs. How about Rush? Would he be a good candidate? He certainly is good at finding that caller disconnect button when someone is about to get one over on him. But maybe he's brain dead, and a consortium of ditto heads pull his strings, thus keeping the Gingrich dream alive. I gotta quit....
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 05:12:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't mean to belittle, but this is most silly. Your knowledge of brain physiology is woefully incomplete. I taught a Physiological Psych class as an undergrad and I have neither heard nor read anything that would support these conclusions, much less as steadfast as you make them here. You seem to have found the specific delimiting lines between emotions in order to make this statement: "Determination is often confused with anger." If you don't mean to imply that these are mutually exclusive feelings, then mea culpa, but it sure appears that you are saying one can't be both determined and angry, which isn't even a logically supported statement, much less an experimentally supported one.
I thought that was exactly what I said. People tell me that anger drives them to do good things. I tell them that their decision to do things along with their determination to do those things are what drives them. Their anger is separate. Anger is simply the denial of what is going on. We say, "It shouldn't happen" for instance. I recognize that this is simplistic. I also think there's a bit of a difference between what we call anger and what happens when you're scared by a tiger, but you're right I have no scientific basis for that and don't think I ever claimed to have that. It's good that you point that out, though.
quote:
You seem to have the mistaken impression that emotions are entirely consciously controllable. I'd suggest you get a good book about the limbic system and we can discuss further.
You're right about studying more, but I think I'm talking more about how our ideas about anger are a matter of culture. We think we're supposed to be angry so we're angry as Slater pointed out. People say things like, he deserves my anger, I have a right to be angry, etc. Anger is largely a matter of perception, and perception is largely controllable consciously. That is, the interpretation of our senses. If you think someone is trying to kill you, you get angry. If you're glad to die, you don't get so angry. If you find out you're mistaken about what you thought, something else happens. Again, certainly if a tiger springs, you have certain feelings if you perceive that happening, but that's something different than calling someone a moron, isn't it?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 01/11/2002 05:15:14 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 05:25:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
So the only reason to call other people "morons" is to insult. The only reason to insult is to attempt to build yourself up. Case closed.
And on whose authority is this pronouncement made? It's pretty silly, not to mention dishonest, to put words in my mouth when the real words are still there for all to see.
What are the words that you want to put in your mouth? You haven't accomplished anything by putting this label on people. You have shown that you are bitter and angry. So what? So are a lot of other people. What did you add to the world? If you're just having fun amongst friends, then fine, I'm not finding fault. If you think you're doing something constructive, then I respectfully disagree. It appears that you wish to make yourself look big at the expense of people with whom you disagree. Your analogy about evil misses my point. To say that someone's actions are "evil", (while the word seems archaic and religious) simply means they are destructive. To say that someone is "evil" is another matter. That stops thought. You don't have to think about anything or try to solve any other problem than making sure that the Archangel Michael kills Lucifer. The world is more complex than that.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 01/11/2002 05:28:24 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
