Okay girls, I have been on an extended quest for information, input and ideas. Things to think about. Things to ponder. Things to make the mind expand and doors to open, while others are surely to close.
No doubt, many of you have read a plethora of parables and social concepts to last a lifetime. I know that I have seen and read a great deal on a variety of subjects. The concept that reflects all of this is the naval [belly button] approach….everyone has one.
So for those of you that have read my input in the past know that the following is designed to get people thinking and participating in an extended journey into the mind.
The bridge to the other gender side is blocked by one concept. That concept is basically simple in nature. As long as you have to think about being the other gender, you can never become the opposite gender. That is, as long as it is an issue in your fore mind, it will never exist for you in the background of your day-to-day existence. You will always be trying to reach that plateau for which it will always be just out of reach.
I have been told that when a true TS person wakes in the morning, regardless of their physical appearance, they feel the opposite of their physical appearance. That is, they know that the either have something extra, or that something is missing, m-t-f, or f-t-m, and that it will not be different the next day or the next.
If the brain is all we have to faithfully identify ourselves with, then it must by default, have something directly to do with the brain’s neuron connections, meaning directly related to our development cycle and not to external forces such as our social community experience.
There is one flaw with this theory. Everything that I think I know and can understand has been for the most part, presented to me by others during my development period outside the womb. With the exception of heart rhythm, and other automatic life sustaining processes, we become what we think about most based on what we have come to believe, as taught to us by others with similar beliefs and constraints. So my conclusion is, I chose to behave the way I do because I have come to believe that I am this person. As long as I believe this I will continue to make this choice in the same manner.
When I stop believing, for any reason, I will choose another role or direction that is compatible with what I believe at the time. We do this everyday; food, clothing, job etc. We change over time. We call this maturing. Is this in our genetic programming? Like a spot that appears on our hand as we age, it was not there before, what made it appear now? Programming! So, can we gender program ourselves? Will our programming change as we mature? Some say yes, there are cases of individuals that only after the death of a long time spouse do they show up as CD etc. Why not before? Did they refrain from such behavior? How did they become aware that they fit this category and was it only after the loss of a loved one that they recognized their need to fulfill this desire to be a CD or did they just restrict themselves from such behavior?
Genes or Choice
Moderators: KimberlyS, CathyAnn
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
Genes or Choice
Make the most of every day!
-
Beauty
- Retired Site Administrator
- Posts: 3662
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:30 am
- Location: Northern VA
- Contact:
-
Alexandra
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: In Monolith We Trust
LOL!Beauty wrote::-s
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
Alexandra!???! Help!!!
Beauty
Basically Danielle is asking if its genes or a "choice" that made us what we are today. I would automatically select "genes" because I find it hard to believe or accept that we have any kind of choice in the matter. But on the other hand Julie has argued there is overlap. This makes some sense to me, but I still think genes are the dominant influence here. However, I don't have a PhD and I don't play a scientist on TV so I'm speaking from laywoman's POV!
Alexandra
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
Wow! Julie, a great deal of quality input. Thank you!
My basis for information comes from a course, "Biology and Human Behavior," Robert M. Sapolsky, Ph.D., Stanford University, Lecture Series from "The Teaching Company Ltd. 1-800-teach-12, they are also on the internet and provide quality lectures from noted professors from around the world covering a plethora of subjects.
My studies in the humanities leads me to believe that while a portion of our western culture is reasonably briefed on these matters that we speak of, the majority remains dangerously ignorant and therefore, this leads me to the next concept.
If we all have the ability to make choices, pro or con, then how is it that so many individuals appear to only rise to a modest level of general education? What motivates approximately 20% of society to push on past general ed. requirements, while 80% remain at a basic level, showing no real interest in pursuit of higher education while remaining firm about wishing to do better, make more money, all of the physical interests that drive western capital culture. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." Could it be that the same factors that keep those from pursuing higher education, also keep them from developing the ability to be more tolerant of individual differences? Race, religion, gender, etc. And to pursue this a bit further, how about one whom becomes enamored with religion, or other organized social constructs to the point of giving up their individual ability to think decisively and independently of the group. I think it is called "group think."
Are all these instances just stopping points on our “life line?” Do they occur randomly, or are they positioned to occur via genetics? I can point to several major junctions in my life that have me asking about the why and how that lead me to this or that decision and result. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. How can I apply this understanding to tomorrow morning? Can I or do I just by changing a particular step in my morning routine or does that change just become an event as it unfolded? Like all events, that have become part of our past, even the smallest ones that a person can imagine or remember. How can one change something that has not already happened yet, that is the time just ahead of your current existence, The next second, the next minute. To change something, is to alter an event over time. How do you change an event that has not happened? Our life may be just that. A sum of events that are, rather than what we like to think is planned and carefully orchestrated by us as we move through time.
How often have you heard someone say, “oh, yeah, I meant to do that?”
My basis for information comes from a course, "Biology and Human Behavior," Robert M. Sapolsky, Ph.D., Stanford University, Lecture Series from "The Teaching Company Ltd. 1-800-teach-12, they are also on the internet and provide quality lectures from noted professors from around the world covering a plethora of subjects.
My studies in the humanities leads me to believe that while a portion of our western culture is reasonably briefed on these matters that we speak of, the majority remains dangerously ignorant and therefore, this leads me to the next concept.
If we all have the ability to make choices, pro or con, then how is it that so many individuals appear to only rise to a modest level of general education? What motivates approximately 20% of society to push on past general ed. requirements, while 80% remain at a basic level, showing no real interest in pursuit of higher education while remaining firm about wishing to do better, make more money, all of the physical interests that drive western capital culture. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." Could it be that the same factors that keep those from pursuing higher education, also keep them from developing the ability to be more tolerant of individual differences? Race, religion, gender, etc. And to pursue this a bit further, how about one whom becomes enamored with religion, or other organized social constructs to the point of giving up their individual ability to think decisively and independently of the group. I think it is called "group think."
Are all these instances just stopping points on our “life line?” Do they occur randomly, or are they positioned to occur via genetics? I can point to several major junctions in my life that have me asking about the why and how that lead me to this or that decision and result. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. How can I apply this understanding to tomorrow morning? Can I or do I just by changing a particular step in my morning routine or does that change just become an event as it unfolded? Like all events, that have become part of our past, even the smallest ones that a person can imagine or remember. How can one change something that has not already happened yet, that is the time just ahead of your current existence, The next second, the next minute. To change something, is to alter an event over time. How do you change an event that has not happened? Our life may be just that. A sum of events that are, rather than what we like to think is planned and carefully orchestrated by us as we move through time.
How often have you heard someone say, “oh, yeah, I meant to do that?”
Make the most of every day!
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
Hi girls:
One of my major goals in writing within this forum is to draw out individuals that can share experience in a non-argumentative but rather debate manor of presentation. For me, while questions may go begging for answers, it is most often, not about answers but rather, about participation and sharing of concepts and ideas along with social ideals.
That for the most part is my reasoning for proposing questions or concepts that have no definite answer at this time. Rather, they are thinking questions, meant to provoke thought and input from those that can see the difference.
Alexandra has always been a good sport about participation and she has shared with me some great insight as you have in this recent round of input Julie. Everyone has something to say, for me, I seek out those that have extensively expanded their horizons through advanced formal education that seems to be less personal opinion and more organized along the lines of accepted information and current concepts in that specific community of individuals. Navel, like opinion, everyone has one! This requires that we research and speak on terms that are not just "what we think" but rather, what is currently thought of by the associated community.
One last comment. For me, living is about change and questioning those that place themselves above others. "Group think" is something that I try to avoid on a regular basis. I have seen the damage and devastation first hand of what "group think" can do. I try never to give up my ability to think individually. Never to turn myself over to and adopt "group think" rules and concepts without question. Even within this community, my interest lies in individual contribution rather than a sounding board for "poor me" thinking.
Hugs
Danielle
One of my major goals in writing within this forum is to draw out individuals that can share experience in a non-argumentative but rather debate manor of presentation. For me, while questions may go begging for answers, it is most often, not about answers but rather, about participation and sharing of concepts and ideas along with social ideals.
That for the most part is my reasoning for proposing questions or concepts that have no definite answer at this time. Rather, they are thinking questions, meant to provoke thought and input from those that can see the difference.
Alexandra has always been a good sport about participation and she has shared with me some great insight as you have in this recent round of input Julie. Everyone has something to say, for me, I seek out those that have extensively expanded their horizons through advanced formal education that seems to be less personal opinion and more organized along the lines of accepted information and current concepts in that specific community of individuals. Navel, like opinion, everyone has one! This requires that we research and speak on terms that are not just "what we think" but rather, what is currently thought of by the associated community.
One last comment. For me, living is about change and questioning those that place themselves above others. "Group think" is something that I try to avoid on a regular basis. I have seen the damage and devastation first hand of what "group think" can do. I try never to give up my ability to think individually. Never to turn myself over to and adopt "group think" rules and concepts without question. Even within this community, my interest lies in individual contribution rather than a sounding board for "poor me" thinking.
Hugs
Danielle
Make the most of every day!
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi all,
An interesting topic, to be sure! The fascinating thing about science is that the knowledge that falls within its scope is never an absolute certainty. It's always knowledge "to the best of our knowledge." What science does is to try to come up with reasonable explanations for the phenomena we encounter (based on our perception of those phenomena) and, in order to see whether or not our explanations hold, to predict a specific outcome given a set of identical initial conditions.
Psychiatrists and psychologists--with the exception of evolutionary psychologists--have long believed (again, given the state of current science) that gender identity is a socially and psychologically determined. But they're not 100% sure.
Endocrinologists look to hormonal factors and intra-uterine conditions during pregnancy for confirmation that gender identity disorders may originate pre-natally. But they're not 100% sure.
Geneticists examine the human genome so that it may become possible for us to understand how our behaviour is programmed into the very structure of our DNA. But, and our own Julie's a good example of this, they're not 100% sure that that's the whole story.
Neurologists (as well as neurophilosophers and neurolinguists) set themselves the task of explicating the intricate web that is our brain (and, sorry, but in my humble opinion, not the most complex structure in the universe!) so that we may see how our behaviours tend to be hardwired in the very framework of our neural connections. But, again, this isn't something they're 100% sure about.
Nobody's 100% sure. What we need is a multi-disciplinary approach, where the contributions from all these fields can be cross-pollinated. Yet, even so, the very nature of the scientific enterprise is such that we may have to resign ourselves to the fact that we may never be 100% sure. Of anything, really.
In the end, asking the questions matters more than getting the answers. From the sound of it, I think we all pretty much agree on that.
A parting shot: for the record, from all I've read on the subject, and from all my discussions with those concerned by it, I think gender is a social construct that "maps" onto a physiologically determined matrix, much like our ability to learn and use language. Language is the art of manipulating abstract symbols in order to convey meaning. We're not born speaking English (or what have you) but we're born with the ability to learn it (or any other language). Similarly with gender, we're not born with feminine or masculine inclinations; but we are born with the ability to receive and implement gender conditioning (and, boy, oh boy, what conditioning awaits us, folks! we're not even born yet but the nursery walls are already painted blue!--or pink, for you GGs!).
Like Alexandra, I'm not a scientist, so all this is merely the result of my trying to educate myself on the matter, not to be taken unquestioningly! Like Julie, I figure a complex mix of factors go to make up why I need to be Christina, why I am Christina.
Thanks for the topic, Danielle. Very stimulating.
Love,
CJ
An interesting topic, to be sure! The fascinating thing about science is that the knowledge that falls within its scope is never an absolute certainty. It's always knowledge "to the best of our knowledge." What science does is to try to come up with reasonable explanations for the phenomena we encounter (based on our perception of those phenomena) and, in order to see whether or not our explanations hold, to predict a specific outcome given a set of identical initial conditions.
Psychiatrists and psychologists--with the exception of evolutionary psychologists--have long believed (again, given the state of current science) that gender identity is a socially and psychologically determined. But they're not 100% sure.
Endocrinologists look to hormonal factors and intra-uterine conditions during pregnancy for confirmation that gender identity disorders may originate pre-natally. But they're not 100% sure.
Geneticists examine the human genome so that it may become possible for us to understand how our behaviour is programmed into the very structure of our DNA. But, and our own Julie's a good example of this, they're not 100% sure that that's the whole story.
Neurologists (as well as neurophilosophers and neurolinguists) set themselves the task of explicating the intricate web that is our brain (and, sorry, but in my humble opinion, not the most complex structure in the universe!) so that we may see how our behaviours tend to be hardwired in the very framework of our neural connections. But, again, this isn't something they're 100% sure about.
Nobody's 100% sure. What we need is a multi-disciplinary approach, where the contributions from all these fields can be cross-pollinated. Yet, even so, the very nature of the scientific enterprise is such that we may have to resign ourselves to the fact that we may never be 100% sure. Of anything, really.
In the end, asking the questions matters more than getting the answers. From the sound of it, I think we all pretty much agree on that.
A parting shot: for the record, from all I've read on the subject, and from all my discussions with those concerned by it, I think gender is a social construct that "maps" onto a physiologically determined matrix, much like our ability to learn and use language. Language is the art of manipulating abstract symbols in order to convey meaning. We're not born speaking English (or what have you) but we're born with the ability to learn it (or any other language). Similarly with gender, we're not born with feminine or masculine inclinations; but we are born with the ability to receive and implement gender conditioning (and, boy, oh boy, what conditioning awaits us, folks! we're not even born yet but the nursery walls are already painted blue!--or pink, for you GGs!).
Like Alexandra, I'm not a scientist, so all this is merely the result of my trying to educate myself on the matter, not to be taken unquestioningly! Like Julie, I figure a complex mix of factors go to make up why I need to be Christina, why I am Christina.
Thanks for the topic, Danielle. Very stimulating.
Love,
CJ
-
Alexandra
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: In Monolith We Trust
I agree with you there. So, let me ask you this . . . are you saying in cases/discussions/threads where "group think" mode is active, somebody should always play the devil's advocate?Danielle La Belle wrote: "Group think" is something that I try to avoid on a regular basis. I have seen the damage and devastation first hand of what "group think" can do. I try never to give up my ability to think individually. Never to turn myself over to and adopt "group think" rules and concepts without question.
Alexandra
-
Alexandra
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: In Monolith We Trust
Not to hijack the thread, but I wonder if anybody here subscribes to any "critical thinking" periodicals or read any "critical thinking" books? I've read many of the major ones. Debunking baloneyCJ wrote: Like Alexandra, I'm not a scientist,
is an area of interest to me. If anybody is interested I've a list. 
Alexandra
-
Alexandra
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: In Monolith We Trust
Good idea!
I subscribe to "Skeptic" because its an easier read (for me) than "Skeptical Inquiry" (more suited to a PhD student ) but I do buy a copy every now and then.
As for books, these are the ones I have -- starting with the most favorite:
1) Carl Sagan/Demon-Haunted World.
(what can I say? this is the best book I've EVER read.)
2) Michael Shermer/Why People Believe Weird Things?
(Shermer is the publisher of "Skeptic" An easy and enjoyable read -- if you're only going to read one book on debunking, this would be the one to pick.)
3) Schick-Vaughn/How To Think About Weird Things.
(I liked this a lot -- useful, very educational and a good reference book for your library)
4) Joel Achenbach/Captured by Aliens
(an amusing and enjoyable read -- he debunks UFOs, aliens et al.)
also rans: James Randi/FlimFlam, Martin Gardner/On The Wild Side, Steve Allen/Dumbth.
Any comments anyone?
I subscribe to "Skeptic" because its an easier read (for me) than "Skeptical Inquiry" (more suited to a PhD student
) but I do buy a copy every now and then.As for books, these are the ones I have -- starting with the most favorite:
1) Carl Sagan/Demon-Haunted World.
(what can I say? this is the best book I've EVER read.)
2) Michael Shermer/Why People Believe Weird Things?
(Shermer is the publisher of "Skeptic" An easy and enjoyable read -- if you're only going to read one book on debunking, this would be the one to pick.)
3) Schick-Vaughn/How To Think About Weird Things.
(I liked this a lot -- useful, very educational and a good reference book for your library)
4) Joel Achenbach/Captured by Aliens
(an amusing and enjoyable read -- he debunks UFOs, aliens et al.)
also rans: James Randi/FlimFlam, Martin Gardner/On The Wild Side, Steve Allen/Dumbth.
Any comments anyone?
Alexandra
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi all,
Alexandra,
Thanks for the list, girl! I read both Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, along with Philosophy Now (whenever I can get my hands on it) and The Fortean Times (pure pleasure!). Links below.
In my own life, Carl Sagan is the man most responsible for the way I see the universe and my own place within it. My father is the one who gave me this thirst for knowledge but the man behind The Dragons of Eden, Cosmic Connection, Cosmos, Pale Blue Dot, and Demon-Haunted World is the one who told me where to find the water.
Another book, praised by some, considered trash by others, that had a major impact on me is Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics; I read it when I was about fifteen years old and it sent me exploring both Buddhism and quantum physics (the first, I still have trouble practicing, the second, I still have trouble grasping, but I try nonetheless!).
A word about the relation between science and beliefs: although critical thinking matters, I think its role should limit itself to helping us understand what the world (or the universe) is, how it (and we) came to be, and what makes it "tick." Faith or belief, on the other hand, is a matter more affective than rational; it has more to do with how we feel regarding what we know of the world and our place in it. Debunking the spiritual beliefs of others serves no purpose but to rob them of what they consider a source of personal strength; it's a divisive activity most often engaged in by those who fail to consider the possible dogmatism of their own scientific stance. Religion fails when it enters the realm of science (Creationism anyone?) and science fails when it enters the realm of religion (think of all the great minds that wasted so much of their time and energy trying to "prove" the existence of God). The only time the weight of critical thinking really needs to be brought to bear in religious matters is when people commit (or intend to commit) gross atrocities based on their mis/understanding of the tenets of their own faith. Here's an example from a short article I cut out from last Monday's newspaper (translated from the French):
Refugee Massacre In A Northern Uganda Camp
At least 192 people were killed and 60 others injured in a refugee camp in northern Uganda. The Lord's Army of Resistance rebels, armed with assault rifles and grenades, encircled the Barloonyo camp, home to about 5000 refugees. Many, who'd sought to hide in their homes, were burned alive. The Lord's Army of Resistance seeks to overthrow Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni and to replace the country's constitution with the Ten Commandments.
Hello? Critical thinking is sorely needed here. Or, at the very least, someone perhaps needs to re-read the Ten Commandments. They're not that long and they're not that hard to understand.
Anyway, this is going slightly off-topic. Sorry.
Here are some enjoyable links:
The Fortean Times
http://www.forteantimes.com/
Skeptic
http://www.skeptic.com/
CSICOP, publishers of Skeptical Inquiry
http://www.csicop.org/
Carl Sagan (takes a while to load but well worth it)
http://www.carlsagan.com/
Philosophy Now
http://www.philosophynow.org/
Hope you have fun exploring these sites.
Love,
CJ (ever the Zetetic!)
Alexandra,
Thanks for the list, girl! I read both Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, along with Philosophy Now (whenever I can get my hands on it) and The Fortean Times (pure pleasure!). Links below.
In my own life, Carl Sagan is the man most responsible for the way I see the universe and my own place within it. My father is the one who gave me this thirst for knowledge but the man behind The Dragons of Eden, Cosmic Connection, Cosmos, Pale Blue Dot, and Demon-Haunted World is the one who told me where to find the water.
Another book, praised by some, considered trash by others, that had a major impact on me is Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics; I read it when I was about fifteen years old and it sent me exploring both Buddhism and quantum physics (the first, I still have trouble practicing, the second, I still have trouble grasping, but I try nonetheless!).
A word about the relation between science and beliefs: although critical thinking matters, I think its role should limit itself to helping us understand what the world (or the universe) is, how it (and we) came to be, and what makes it "tick." Faith or belief, on the other hand, is a matter more affective than rational; it has more to do with how we feel regarding what we know of the world and our place in it. Debunking the spiritual beliefs of others serves no purpose but to rob them of what they consider a source of personal strength; it's a divisive activity most often engaged in by those who fail to consider the possible dogmatism of their own scientific stance. Religion fails when it enters the realm of science (Creationism anyone?) and science fails when it enters the realm of religion (think of all the great minds that wasted so much of their time and energy trying to "prove" the existence of God). The only time the weight of critical thinking really needs to be brought to bear in religious matters is when people commit (or intend to commit) gross atrocities based on their mis/understanding of the tenets of their own faith. Here's an example from a short article I cut out from last Monday's newspaper (translated from the French):
Refugee Massacre In A Northern Uganda Camp
At least 192 people were killed and 60 others injured in a refugee camp in northern Uganda. The Lord's Army of Resistance rebels, armed with assault rifles and grenades, encircled the Barloonyo camp, home to about 5000 refugees. Many, who'd sought to hide in their homes, were burned alive. The Lord's Army of Resistance seeks to overthrow Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni and to replace the country's constitution with the Ten Commandments.
Hello? Critical thinking is sorely needed here. Or, at the very least, someone perhaps needs to re-read the Ten Commandments. They're not that long and they're not that hard to understand.
Anyway, this is going slightly off-topic. Sorry.
Here are some enjoyable links:
The Fortean Times
http://www.forteantimes.com/
Skeptic
http://www.skeptic.com/
CSICOP, publishers of Skeptical Inquiry
http://www.csicop.org/
Carl Sagan (takes a while to load but well worth it)
http://www.carlsagan.com/
Philosophy Now
http://www.philosophynow.org/
Hope you have fun exploring these sites.
Love,
CJ (ever the Zetetic!)
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
I agree with you there. So, let me ask you this . . . are you saying in cases/discussions/threads where "group think" mode is active, somebody should always play the devil's advocate?
[from Alexandra]
If there are 10 people in a room and all ten people are shown an object with which they all can name and agree to its identity, that in it itself is "group think." We are willing as a society to accept this as "good" "group think" because it provides a way for us to communicate about what we see, smell, touch etc. for comparison and identification to create communication.
When we join a "group", military, religion, civil government, we agree to accept their rules as previously established. To believe in and act upon those rules, "to keep the faith."
Providing that we do this by choice rather than have it enforced upon us, one might be willing to accept this method of communization "birds of a feather...." as at one time or another we all have. When we are asked and reply that we are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or any other major/minor religion, we are merely stating that we cannot be that religion but that we profess to support and abide by that religion, it's rules and beliefs.
All of us belong to something if not just the human race, but when we adopt a philosophy to the point that we no longer can think for ourselves, that the philosophy becomes us, that is to me, negative "group think."
The reference to the "Religious" group killing off other people in the name of the organization is certainly a good example of negative "group think." We in this thread agree and disagree about statements made by each of us. Too me that is the fundamental purpose of this forum. To share ideas and beliefs and to read others positions so as to enhance our own understanding about how others think on a similar subject.
This for me has been really great! Each person responding so far has obviously spent time thinking about both their answer and additional info. The book list is something that I intend on investigating.
I subscribe to a electronic book library each of you may be interested in. They permit you to do a sample look-up before becoming a member. A fee of $100.00 is charged annually but for me, the cost is well worth it. With 450,000+ books, magazines, periodicals, etc., in digital form, the library continues to gather support from industry, government, and education.
http://www.questia.com
Hugs
Danielle
[from Alexandra]
If there are 10 people in a room and all ten people are shown an object with which they all can name and agree to its identity, that in it itself is "group think." We are willing as a society to accept this as "good" "group think" because it provides a way for us to communicate about what we see, smell, touch etc. for comparison and identification to create communication.
When we join a "group", military, religion, civil government, we agree to accept their rules as previously established. To believe in and act upon those rules, "to keep the faith."
Providing that we do this by choice rather than have it enforced upon us, one might be willing to accept this method of communization "birds of a feather...." as at one time or another we all have. When we are asked and reply that we are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or any other major/minor religion, we are merely stating that we cannot be that religion but that we profess to support and abide by that religion, it's rules and beliefs.
All of us belong to something if not just the human race, but when we adopt a philosophy to the point that we no longer can think for ourselves, that the philosophy becomes us, that is to me, negative "group think."
The reference to the "Religious" group killing off other people in the name of the organization is certainly a good example of negative "group think." We in this thread agree and disagree about statements made by each of us. Too me that is the fundamental purpose of this forum. To share ideas and beliefs and to read others positions so as to enhance our own understanding about how others think on a similar subject.
This for me has been really great! Each person responding so far has obviously spent time thinking about both their answer and additional info. The book list is something that I intend on investigating.
I subscribe to a electronic book library each of you may be interested in. They permit you to do a sample look-up before becoming a member. A fee of $100.00 is charged annually but for me, the cost is well worth it. With 450,000+ books, magazines, periodicals, etc., in digital form, the library continues to gather support from industry, government, and education.
http://www.questia.com
Hugs
Danielle
Make the most of every day!
-
Alexandra
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: In Monolith We Trust
Danielle, I visited the site . . . interesting . . . although I can see the value of authors/publishers submitting newspapers/periodicals articles to the site, but I don't see how this model would appeal to publishers/authors of books -- but thats another topic.
It appears that this site focuses on humanities and social sciences. Is this correct?
It appears that this site focuses on humanities and social sciences. Is this correct?
Alexandra
-
Sally
- We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:33 am
- Location: N.S.W. Australia
Genes or choice
Hello Danielle, how are you,
This is something I have debated over many, many hours and I always go with the theory that it is genetic as to why I am as I am.
There are cases to be made for both nature or nurture, but surely, if me as a four year old had feelings of being uncomfortable in the role of a boy, at that tender age there must have been something more than choice or nurture involved, as at that age I had no knowledge of transgenderism or anything to do with choices of portraying as a male or female.
When we can see the results of the scientific medics who study Turners and Klinefelters Syndromes, which are at the extremes, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the theories that during our time in the womb we are all subjected to variations in out testosterone baths etc etc which determine our outcome, as well as variations in our chromosome makeup.
If we are to accept that chromosomes determne our sex, as we are led to believe, then even if XX determines female and XY determines male, and XO determines Turners and XXY determines Klinefelters, then if there are so many other variations in the chromosomes, we can see that nature doesn't always follow the exact same pattern.
It is stated that 1/5000 people suffer Turners and 1/700 suffer Kleinfelters, so if nature makes these major differences in these numbers, then I am prepared to believe that it makes differences on a lesser scale at a much higher rate.
By this I mean that if we take pure male at one end and pure female at the other end, it can be assumed that in between there can be an untold number of variations of XX females who are brain wired more to male tendencies than others and vice versa with males, all to varying degrees. I believe that there are many more causes which effect how a person evolves, and those who believe that it is chromosomes alone which determine our true sex have a failing argument, because, as we know it is necessary for the presence of a Y to produce male characteristics, but the number of X chromosomes present do not play a significant role in sex determination.
It is an ever ongoing subject, which I have debated over long periods, as it is of immense importance to me. I know that nothing can ever change me from who and what I am, but it would be of interest for me that one day the medical scientists will find unshakeable evidence as to why there is such a variation in gender and sex.
I believe the first step would be if they could find the 'gay gene', which many scientists believe exists, hopefully as they explore deeper into the chromosome and gene pool they will find the answers. If they do conclusively find unshakable evidence then that would go a long way to providing the evidence we need to present to the world that we are not abnormal, as a lot believe. We are how we were made, some people have blue eyes, some brown, some black skin, some white or brown etc, some have red hair, some blonde some dark, some people are tall, skinny, fat, short etc etc, and some people are male and some female and some are somewhere inbetween. It is a lively healthy debate and it should receive the attention it needs and deserves.
I believe that much of how the world thinks is a result of mass psychology, by that I mean most people think that if everyone else is doing it or thinking it, then it must be right. , Humans are a herd animal and as such, most people don't think for themselves enough and are prepared to run with the herd, so it comes about that we become ostracised because we don't think and act the same as the herd, but we do so for the best of reasons, we are being the people we were born as and how we are is how it was meant to be.
There is so much more can be said on the subject than time here allows, but I look forward to more involvement in it.
Kind Regards.
Sally.
This is something I have debated over many, many hours and I always go with the theory that it is genetic as to why I am as I am.
There are cases to be made for both nature or nurture, but surely, if me as a four year old had feelings of being uncomfortable in the role of a boy, at that tender age there must have been something more than choice or nurture involved, as at that age I had no knowledge of transgenderism or anything to do with choices of portraying as a male or female.
When we can see the results of the scientific medics who study Turners and Klinefelters Syndromes, which are at the extremes, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the theories that during our time in the womb we are all subjected to variations in out testosterone baths etc etc which determine our outcome, as well as variations in our chromosome makeup.
If we are to accept that chromosomes determne our sex, as we are led to believe, then even if XX determines female and XY determines male, and XO determines Turners and XXY determines Klinefelters, then if there are so many other variations in the chromosomes, we can see that nature doesn't always follow the exact same pattern.
It is stated that 1/5000 people suffer Turners and 1/700 suffer Kleinfelters, so if nature makes these major differences in these numbers, then I am prepared to believe that it makes differences on a lesser scale at a much higher rate.
By this I mean that if we take pure male at one end and pure female at the other end, it can be assumed that in between there can be an untold number of variations of XX females who are brain wired more to male tendencies than others and vice versa with males, all to varying degrees. I believe that there are many more causes which effect how a person evolves, and those who believe that it is chromosomes alone which determine our true sex have a failing argument, because, as we know it is necessary for the presence of a Y to produce male characteristics, but the number of X chromosomes present do not play a significant role in sex determination.
It is an ever ongoing subject, which I have debated over long periods, as it is of immense importance to me. I know that nothing can ever change me from who and what I am, but it would be of interest for me that one day the medical scientists will find unshakeable evidence as to why there is such a variation in gender and sex.
I believe the first step would be if they could find the 'gay gene', which many scientists believe exists, hopefully as they explore deeper into the chromosome and gene pool they will find the answers. If they do conclusively find unshakable evidence then that would go a long way to providing the evidence we need to present to the world that we are not abnormal, as a lot believe. We are how we were made, some people have blue eyes, some brown, some black skin, some white or brown etc, some have red hair, some blonde some dark, some people are tall, skinny, fat, short etc etc, and some people are male and some female and some are somewhere inbetween. It is a lively healthy debate and it should receive the attention it needs and deserves.
I believe that much of how the world thinks is a result of mass psychology, by that I mean most people think that if everyone else is doing it or thinking it, then it must be right. , Humans are a herd animal and as such, most people don't think for themselves enough and are prepared to run with the herd, so it comes about that we become ostracised because we don't think and act the same as the herd, but we do so for the best of reasons, we are being the people we were born as and how we are is how it was meant to be.
There is so much more can be said on the subject than time here allows, but I look forward to more involvement in it.
Kind Regards.
Sally.
Watch nature, because it’s our greatest teacher, it moves and flows and moves on again. We can never be free until we disengage, so allow life to flow as you find it. The way it is, is the way it is.
-
Alexandra
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: In Monolith We Trust
Oh-oh . . . I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you there CJCJ wrote:The only time the weight of critical thinking really needs to be brought to bear in religious matters is when people commit (or intend to commit) gross atrocities based on their mis/understanding of the tenets of their own faith.
.First, I'm inclined to think that one's religious belief is a matter that should remain solely between her and her God. I believe that God, (if she exists) would prefer it be that way rather than group worship which all too often leads to strife on Earth.
Unfortunately because of the popularity of group worship, we often have to deal with things that threaten to unravel the threads of our fair and equal society -- recent examples: the expanding "intelligent design" movement and just a few weeks ago, in the midwest some state academic bigwig wanted to replace the word "evolution" with another word in school text books.
I'm afraid that critical thinking has to be applied on ALL religious matters that pass our way so that our society remains free for everybody, including those that are deeply religious.
What say you?
Alexandra
-
Alexandra
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: In Monolith We Trust
Re: Genes or choice
You betcha! You'll find loads of evidence that supports your statement!Sally wrote:I believe that much of how the world thinks is a result of mass psychology, by that I mean most people think that if everyone else is doing it or thinking it, then it must be right.
Alexandra