Willie71

It's not as simple as snipping some neurons in the brain. Sexuality is a combination of genetic predispositions, environmental cues, and learned behaviour. I worked with sex offenders, and I am unaware of any evidence that psychosurgery has consistent, positive results. I'll do a search next time I log into the library and see what is there. CBT, relapse prevention, social skills training are all shown to have positive results.

MSG, you are missing the cost of a co-dependent relationship. There us a cycling power dynamic between the two parties, often an antisocial or narcissistic personality, and a borderline, histrionic, or dependent personality. We tend to think that one side is dominant, and the other side submissive, but the dominance alternatedps between one side being called out for behaving badly, being expected to suck up, but once sucking up for a while, resentment for not being appreciated builds, and a new cycle of misbehaviour starts. Because the person who is perceived to have lower power enjoys being sucked up to, they push the other individual to misbehave, often in ways they are not aware of, such as jealousy, testing, putting the other in a double bind, stepping out because the other isn't meeting their needs, etc. they feel it's completely normal and justified.

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/TEMPO%2520Police%2520Interactions%2520082014.pdf Summary: conservatives thinking is overridden by fear. They fear things that aren't real threats, but cannot be convinced the threat isn't real. Recent examples are Ebola, islamaphobia, systemic racism, and fear of others that is so strong they can convince themselves they need to be armed to protect themselves from random attacks. Let's check with reality. None of these risks are greater than being struck by lightning. Yet, these are very real concerns to the conservative population. They just aren't real in terms of measured risk. The belief that everyone in America has the same opportunity, and success and failure is based on personal character, motivation, or morality is an absolute myth. There is not a single paper from a respected source that could make this case. Conservatives are much more likely to be religious, and the more right, the more fundamental. Policy on the environment, and medical sciences are based on mythological teachings from a couple millenia ago. Economic beliefs on the right actually decrease the average citizens prosperity. The GDP, or per capita wealth may look better at a glance, but the 1%ers prosper so much at the expense of everyone else, that the general stats look good. Liberals aren't stealing from the citizens, they are establishing a more even distribution of wealth, at the expense of the peak value statistic. It goes on and on. There is no conservative belief that stands up to scrutiny. It's simly a religious faith.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/study-predicts-political-beliefs-with-83-percent-accuracy-17536124/ http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/secrets_of_the_right_wing_brain_new_study_proves_it_conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/ Read this and get back to me.

You would have to teach the idea of pareidolia from a very early age to account for the natural tendency to see faces, meaning, hearing things in the environment that are actually random. People with above average dopamine levels will experience the religious presence of spirits, or father more frequently. This would have to be taught at a scientific level. It's overcoming the significant perceptual and cognitive limitations that we have to use to function and survive. I don't know if it could work. Most atheists have lower dopamine levels, and are less prone to the religious presence, so it's easier to reason it away. Interesting thought. As a comparison, raising children in gender neutral environments does not prevent the expression of gender specific traits. Who knows? It's unlikely to get funding, or pass the ethics board on this.

This is incorrect. As a psychiatric nurse, I give diagnosis on each case I see. Psychologists and social workers at the masters level can too. There is no diagnosis of insanity either. The specific condition will be lured based on the manual used, the DSM5, or the ICD10. Insane is not the correct term. Are they scizophrenic, bipolar? No. They have a belief system that is not connected with reality, but as with religion, a shared group delusion is a faith, not an illness under current standards. If it is learned, then it is belief. Outside of this caveat, conservatives, when asserting the world is 6000 years old, or that evolution is untrue, or that climate change is not happening, are clearly and unequivocally out of touch with reality. It's simply delusional, but taught just like the various magic man beliefs of the Abrahamis religions. One read of the bible should confirm the nonsensical nature of the assertion, but we are told repeatedly that this is truth, and questioning is not acceptible.

Isn't the inaccuracy only relevant on extremely small time scales? I've been pondering this for the past few weeks, and haven't come to any conclusions yet. Our bodies replace the entire cellular contents countless times throughout our lives. I can't remember the exact timeline, but I seem to remember every 2 weeks, or 2 months? I'll have to dig through my texts and find it again.

Regarding cloning. Our experiences shape our brain development, so how much of our personality survive cloning, assuming the brain was an exact copy of the existing brain? I know this isn't really how it works, just like musculature wouldn't be identical, nor would any injuries or arthritic conditions be transferred.

The pain you feel is a testament to the strength of the relationship you had. It's not fair, it's not right. Sometimes the world just sucks. Spend some quality time remembering, and reminiscing. Don't push it out of your mind. Engage in hobbies, charity work, and conversation. You need to maintain your relationships and distract yourself balanced with processing. Acceptance of what things are, rather than what they could or should be is one of the toughest things to process, and it takes time. I lost my son (in relationship, not death) to a drug addiction. It sucks, but what I do know about life, is that no matter how good or bad it is, it never stays that way for long before something happens to shake it up.

To summarize the theoretical physics required to explain how something comes from nothing, based on a century or more of previous discovery and confirmation expriments, would take a book length post. http://books.google.ca/books/about/A_Universe_from_Nothing.html?id=nfGlsiDGbxkC&redir_esc=y A brief summary: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing There are youtube videos as well.

Children naturally gravitate to causal thinking. They will assume a puddle was put there to give a dog a drink, rather than see it as a low spot after a rain. As our brains mature, we question this thinking, but it always remains at a certain level with the majority of people. Incorrect causal relations is like a thought form of pareidolia. Those who are attracted to sciences, about 15% of the population, are the strongest questioners.

If I was not expected to accept a nonsensical explanation, I might have kept faith in a god longer. However, any religion that suggested we were created in gods image, or that we were the reason for creation, somehow special in the universe could not have survived much longer. I was considering astronomy, palaeontology, or physics as a career, and even in my early teens recognized how irrational these beliefs were compared to the reality of the universe.

I lost my faith when I was about 13. I think I put it down for a while because it was really obtrusive, and was getting in the way of thinking rationally. After I read the bible back to front, and asked a priest about the contradictions, getting the bible is inerrant/God works in mysterious ways line, it crumbled before my eyes. I remember thinking that night, lying in bed, that there is no way any sane person could read that book and believe the creator of the universe inspired it, unless he was a psychopath.

If you don't toe the party line, you aren't a conservative. That label doesn't fit you. I think most would refer to you as unaffiliated, or independent.

Being conservative is agreeing on some specific philosophical tenets. Those tenets are clearly not supported by science, and therefore the philosophy is misguided at best, and outright insane in the more extreme forms. There are differences in the way conservatives in general reason, and respond to fear. There are differences in acceptance of differences in others, as well as in rigidity of thinking. If someone varies from these tenets, do we still call them conservatives?

Read Lawrence Krauss's book. It does a great job explaining the incorrectness of your statements.

I've read the transcripts, and only three witnesses reported a charging Brown. I'm not saying witnesses were omitted, but the witnesses in majority did not support Wilson's testimony. Wilson, and two other witnesses, whose testimony did not present as an account, but as making a point claimed a charging Brown. What they described is highly physically improbable. The rest of the witnesses reported they saw Brown with his arms raised at shoulder height stumbling, trying to catch his balance, curling forward as one would see with a shot to the abdomen. Witness 14 presents the most credible sounding testimony. A few reported they weren't able to see, driving away, or ducking for cover.

The forensic evidence does not support Wilson. Most of it was ambiguous. The testimony was rehearsed (Wilson's). The timeline for Brown to have been charging would have resulted in Wilson long tackled on the ground. The radio call for backup never happened. The radio mysteriously changed channels. The "injuries" to Wilson were great exaggerations. The majority of witnesses described a stunned, shocked, surrendering Brown. The testimony of the few witnesses that claimed charging were quite unbelievable, as the details don't make sense ( the testimony of the execution doesn't either.) Oh, BTW, I worked in Forensiv Psychiatry for two decades, and am quite familiar with assessing believability, assessing memory issues, false memories, and the brain's stress response in terms of witness testimony. The prosecutor actually instructed the jury they should not indict. The questioning was incredibly leading and sympathetic to Wilson. Having Wildon testify was quite out of the ordinary. There's more, but it gets tiring typing the numerous flaws in the process.

Ascension appears to be a new attempt at the genre. http://www.syfy.com I think part of the problem is not coming across as cheesy. Budgets are often high, and audiences are middle of the road in terms of ratings. There have been a few attempts on cable, or the BBC, but the two I liked best were cancelled before the second season.

This was out and out corruption. There isn't even a hint at impartiality. The Wilson interview was rehearsed (I've read many court transcripts over my 20 year career, wnd this was one of the most rehearsed I've ever seen." I felt sick to my stomach looking at the forensic evidence, and how it was misrepresented, as it does not support Wilson without creative, highly improbable, or even impossible circumstances. At minimum, Wilson panicked, and unloaded his clip. Suggesting more would only be likely if Wilson worked in a corrupt department, or racist department where blacks were dehumanized. Oh wait, he did, but that component remains speculation.

Rioting is part of mob mentality, a separate principle from protesting, though a protest can turn into a mob.

Have a watch of this video. Faith healing is a series of techniques to fool perception, and prey on confirmation bias.

Validation is the ability to communicate understanding without necessarily agreeing with someone. Sympathy is a different thing. I didn't use sympathy much in my work as many people feel patronized by sympathy. In regards to responsibility for ones actions, this is a very complicated issue for me. I am not ready to say there is no responsibility, but considering how we all justify certain things that others know are wrong, such as speeding, using pot, or withholding information from the tax man, we all feel certain laws are unjust, or don't apply to us. The same justifications are used by the people we call criminals, but they have a different threshold than we do, because of life experiences and genetic predispositions.

What do we do now? These types of situations require a three generation solution. Step one is acceptance. The people of ferguson are the way they are, and they make sense. Only 5% of people class jump independently, so a spontaneous solution is out. Prosecute police for violations of the constitution, and stop racial profiling. There needs to be community outreach, police involved in the community, with a non judgemental stance. Organize sports teams, community get togethers. Few will attend at first, but as the years pass, the people will start trusting. Hot breakfast school programs, free tutoring, and scholarship opportunities are all known to be effective. Keep the drug dealers out of the schools. In three generations, you will have a much higher functioning community. People need to be proud of who they are, not judged and ashamed.

The age of the universe according to the bible Is derived from adding up all the begats. It's about 6000 years. All three Abrahamis religions are based on the same God of Abraham through Moses and so on. I'm assuming it's the same approximate lineage, and therefore about the same age. I may be wrong as I have the Koran but haven't finished reading it. It's much more poetic than the bible, almost like reading a song. It's less violent than the bible, but it's just a matter of degree though. I did a Google search, and it appears some muslims think the world is 6000 years old. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8814298/Richard-Dawkins-attacks-Muslim-schools-for-stuffing-childrens-minds-with-alien-rubbish.html Other sources disagree. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution