dr.syntax

I understand you were not responding to me syntax, I still think your post was a little patronizing.

 

And greenprogrammin I did understand your point and I enjoyed it. I think it builds well on top of my point.

REPLY: Thank goodness I got that straightened out. Your Friend, ...Dr.Syntax

I believe I have been very nice to you Dr. Syntax, but in all reality what the heck did that rant have to do with anything about the original post, it was very off topic and seemed very "preachy" to me.

THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO A YOUNG MAN WHO SEEMED VERY TROUBLED. I don`t think it was meant for you. It had some elses name. Please don`t be mad. I don`t how it happened. I really don`t. I got an incoming message and responded to that and went back to this . It``s a screw up some where and I`ll try and erase it. ..your friend, Dr.Syntax

Merged post follows:

I believe I have been very nice to you Dr. Syntax, but in all reality what the heck did that rant have to do with anything about the original post, it was very off topic and seemed very "preachy" to me.

This is a mistake, It was not a reply to you. I don`t know how it got posted here, i really don`t. Sorry, it was not in reply to anything you said. Now I have erased it. You posted it as a quote by me . To erase that you have to go edit and just hold down the backspace button until it is all gone then just type in mistake or something and press save,

mistake made sorry

mistake

i'm afraid you've got quite a bit to learn before getting to the point where you can predict the bond angles. In the course I teach, covalent bonds and ionic bonds are in chapter 2 and VSEPR (the theory which helps predict bond angles) is in chapter 11.

 

A good chemistry textbook and some friends or people with a bit more knowledge of chemistry to bounce questions off will help if you want to go faster than your school is going.

 

sorry to not answer your question fully but it'd take a good few pages and even then it might not be useful to you.

REPLY: I thought of you because I wanted to know if that molecular modeling kit you suggested I buy would in some way: as in I use it to make a model of any given molecule and could I or could I not, simply measure the different bond angles using a [ protractor ? ] I really do appreciate the advise you give me. ...Dr.Syntax

*headdesk*

I have no idea what head desk means, but team suckhole is showing up so whatever it is I am sure it has some clever meaning intended to let me know,WHAT ? ...DS

dr.syntax...I'm afraid to say I must agree with Ms. JillSwift.

 

Primal Therapy has obviously been shown to not produce any positive therapeutic outcomes...and those are peer-reviewed studies saying that.

You can't argue a point and expect the other person to ONLY argue from that point as well.

 

That would make theological discussions SO much easier

 

Me: "Jesus exists."

Them: "Prove it."

Me: "The Bible says so."

Them: "Damn, you're right."

 

You see how that just isn't fair or right?

REPLY: You are getting real good at sucking up. You should go far in this World , you can`t stop yourself. There is iNow and you just got 2 big brown nose points so far today with him. Did you ever bother to read what Dr.Janov had to say? You know how people get a brown nose don`t you ? STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT and I am sure the answer will come to you. You are no friend of mine. ...DS

Just thought I'd share this with you in case you missed it the first several times.

Are you happy now ? You will probably end up getting me banned. I guess you get a lot of satisfaction out of this. What does that say about the sort of person you are. You and team suck hole who I guess you are the leader of can be real happy about all this. Once again you showed the forum who is in charge here. I see how you operate and you are good at it. What your pupose is other than to let everyone know that you are somehow special, well that is your purpose isn`t it little man. ...DS

Merged post follows:

Only one good thing ever came from primal therapy: the song Shout by Tears for Fears

screw you. DS

How or why is Primal Therapy not a legitimate topic for discussion in this forum. And why is it iNow has the ability to kill any discussion I start about this important topic. This is a topic that only promotes the common good, the health and well being of mankind. Why of all topics does this one generate such hostility ? I see postings explaining to proven dangerous people how to create dangerous compounds, A-bombs, shit like that. And this topic I post about to promote the well being of mankind gets stomped out of existence because iNow does not agree with it. What the ,,,, kind of forum is this ? ...Dr.Syntax

We've done this before, Dr.Syntax, and the thread was closed:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44515

 

 

Here, too: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44544

 

And, also here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43514

 

 

Either way, just to remain consistent, I'll share my own below... again.

 

The Five Great Myths of Popular Psychology

Primal therapy instructs clients to discharge their anger associated with painful emotions experienced in infancy, during birth, and even in utero. To do so, clients must yell, shout obscenities, and kick and hit objects (Singer & Lalich, 1996).

 

<...>

 

However, a large body of psychological research demonstrates that expressing anger openly is rarely psychologically helpful in the long-run, although it may make people feel slightly better in the short run. Indeed, in most cases, expressing anger actually results in more, not less, long-term anger, raising serious questions concerning the catharsis hypothesis (Lohr, Olatunji, Baumeister, & Bushman, 2006). In a variety of laboratory studies, participants who engage in verbal, written, or physical anger against an aggressor (for example, in a simulated game involving electric shocks) have been found to experience more hostility than participants who did not (Bushman, 2002; Lewis & Bucher, 1992; Warren & Kurlycheck, 1981).

 

 

Either way, this site takes care of most of the faults:

http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/

 

 

 

Here's more.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_therapy

Since [the 1970s], primal therapy has fallen into obscurity, in part because Janov never produced the outcomes studies necessary to demonstrate its effectiveness.

 

<...>

 

Primal therapy has not achieved broad acceptance in mainstream psychology.[19][20] It has been frequently criticized as lacking outcome studies to prove its effectiveness.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] It is regarded as one of the least creditable forms of psychotherapy.[19]

 

Primal therapy has sometimes been criticized as shallow, glib, simplistic, or trendy.[29][30][31][32][33] It has also been criticized for not paying sufficient attention to transference.[34][35] It has also been criticized for its claim that adults can recall infantile experiences, which some researchers believe is impossible.[36] It has also been criticized as being dogmatic or overly reductionist. [30][37]

 

<...>

 

In 1996, authors Starker and Pankratz published in Psychological reports a study of 300 randomly-sampled psychologists. Participants were asked for their views about the soundness of methods of mental health treatment. Primal therapy was identified as one of the approaches "most in question as to soundness".[20]

 

<...>

 

Primal therapy is cited in the book The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. The author claims that all schools of psychotherapy, including primal therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and others, do not have scientific evidence of effectiveness beyond placebo. [42]

 

In the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, Timothy Moore wrote: "Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale." [43]

 

<...>

 

The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) Newsletter listed primal therapy, among other treatments, in the article "Dubious Mental Health."[45]

 

 

That's A LOT of references in support of the opposition.

 

Is there any amount of evidence that will convince you it's bunk? If not, then really... what's the point?

REPLY: You never quote Janov, only his detractors. What they say is their opinion, nothing else. And as far as quoting so called authorities goes, you yourself pointed out to me that is not proof of anything. Darwin is an excellent examlple of how valid the opinion of authorities is. Not much. Authorities` historical record regarding revolutionary concepts that challenge their self interests is a poor one at best.

All you have ever done is to find some detractor to quote. For someone as famous as Janov there will always be some one some where to quote a derogatory statement by. In fact it was you yourself that said essentially the same thing in my posting about Einstein. Always this double standard with you. When you do it ,it is all supposed to be some valid proof of something, when I did it I was a racist and some other things I cannot recall off hand. No, you are not going to do this to me. I could dig up an endless list of Einstein detractors. They at least had historical accounts to reference. Those you refer to have only their opinion and nothing else. I have never heard of any of them. Unless you are willing to pick out a statement by Janov himself, and discuss that with me I see nothing to discuss with you AND WILL NOT. D.S.

I need to note that this argument for the validity of Primal Therapy is going to be my words and wording,not those of Dr. Arthur Janov himself. I may very well choose to quote him from time to time and will indicate when I am doing so in the customary way. I do not have Dr.Janov here with me to argue the case for himself ,here in this forum. Dr.Janov does an excellent job of doing just that in the many books he has written on this extremely important subject. A true CURE for neurosis was discovered and developed by Dr.Janov beginning back in the 1960s and his research and development of this revolutionary approach to the treatment and prevention of neurosis is an ongoing process . The name of this institute is: The Janov Primal Center: For Treatment, Training and Research . " Where Primal Therapy is a Science." The web address for the "Janov Primal Center " is: [ http://www.primaltherapy.com ]. A brief overview is presented on the opening page [ one short paragraph ] and many links to pertainment information such as " Supporting Evidence ",DrJanov`s Blog,the Legacy, and on and on.

Myself and many others consider Dr. Janov`s discovery and developement of Primal Therapy to be among the most important discoveries of all time. I and others see it that way because of the enormous implications it holds for the relief of the suffering of mankind. For the first time ever the causes of and treatment for neurosis is here,now,real and available. This also provides for the prevention of neurosis to begin with. This is a subject Dr.Aletha Solter is an internationally renowned expert on who has written many books discussing and made a very many presentations about throughout the World.

I wish to quote Dr.David A.Goodman,director of the Newport Neuroscience Center,San Marcos, California,USA. QUOTE: " Dr.Janov is the discoverer of a remarkable feeling therapy that taps into the feeling side of the brain. I will join the men and women from 21st Century Science and take part in this remarkable therapy, demonstrating the persistence and integtegrity of Dr.Janov"..." Read what Janov writes , he writes the truth about what happens in the brain." UNQUOTE. I hope all responders will take the time to click onto Dr.Janov`s website and at least have some minimal read by Janov himself before responding. Sincerely, ...Dr.Syntax

Dr. Syntax, it seems to me that iNow has linked to peer-reviewed articles, which is considered a valid way to oppose an argument. It's not really Appeal to Authority, which would be iNow throwing out one Dr.'s name and saying "Since he doesn't agree with it, it's wrong, and he's right, because he's a doctor and he must know exactly what he's talking about."

 

Now, what I know about psychology is probably equivalent to that of a small gerbil's, but using my common sense, I do not think Primal Therapy would work.

Why would I want to scream about stuff that makes me mad? It seems that that would just heighten my propensity to just scream whenever something makes me mad, instead of me addressing what is exactly making me mad, and then seeing if I am in the wrong, or if I could help "enlighten" the idiot that is making me mad.

 

That's how I feel anyways.

REPLY: Maybe you should at least take a few minutes of your time to read at least the basic premise of what primal therapy is before you start posting opinions based on second hand opinions written by Janov haters. You can do so by going to : [ http://www.primaltherapy.com ]. Allow the man to speak for himself before judging him and his work. He presents a brief overview of primal therapy and provides links for any questions you may have about primal therapy.

Any notion that PT is a bunch of mindless screaming is a bunch of lying nonsense put out on the web by Janov haters or so called authority figures who`s own concepts of psychology are directly challenged by Janov. The reason people benifit from accessing suppressed feelings is that those feeling are there exerting harmful entities such as cortisol into your body. By going through the primal process you resolve these repressed feelings and they exist as nothing more than a memory. No longer needing to be suppressed because you have resolved the feeling by allowing yourself to express what for whatever reason you forced yourself not to feel. It can be many things that happened when you were an infant. Not being breast fed and in very close contact to your mother or someone else for extended and repeated lengthy periods of time can and does make a developing infant neurotic. Think about monkeys for instance. They are in constant physical contact with their mother or one of her sisters or some other female in the group CONSTANTLY. They are never left alone. They are in constant physical contact as I just described in the early year or two of their lives. What makes us humans so different from them. Watch a mother dog with her new born puppies. She spends almost all of her time lying there nursing and caring for them in the early weeks of their lives. At least read what Janov has to say for himself before offering up opinions of his work based on the opinions people who are threatened by what he has to say in the same way many are threatened by what Darwin has to say.It strikes at the core of their different belief systems. Ones they were forced to create themselves as a means of suppressing feelings they for varying reasons could not allow themselves to feel. Many infants soon enough realize that crying out as they instinctively do, for their mothers,does not get them the loving attention they so desperately need almost constantly in the first 2 years or so. I would think a human infants needs for such attention is at least as much as that of a chimpanzee`s Do you think that a human child is smarter and therefore it`s needs are therefore less. I will say I think it is exactly the opposite. There were studies done at orphanages where the infants were bottle fed and diapers changed and such, but other than that, they received no touching. ALL 100% OF THESE INFANTS DIED !! That is how vitally important this need to be in touch with a loving or caring mother is. ...Dr.Syntax

I'm responding here, but Request Mod move these posts to their own thread.

 

 

The Five Great Myths of Popular Psychology

Primal therapy instructs clients to discharge their anger associated with painful emotions experienced in infancy, during birth, and even in utero. To do so, clients must yell, shout obscenities, and kick and hit objects (Singer & Lalich, 1996).

 

<...>

 

However, a large body of psychological research demonstrates that expressing anger openly is rarely psychologically helpful in the long-run, although it may make people feel slightly better in the short run. Indeed, in most cases, expressing anger actually results in more, not less, long-term anger, raising serious questions concerning the catharsis hypothesis (Lohr, Olatunji, Baumeister, & Bushman, 2006). In a variety of laboratory studies, participants who engage in verbal, written, or physical anger against an aggressor (for example, in a simulated game involving electric shocks) have been found to experience more hostility than participants who did not (Bushman, 2002; Lewis & Bucher, 1992; Warren & Kurlycheck, 1981).

 

 

Either way, this site takes care of most of the faults:

http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/

REPLY: YOU WON`T DEBATE ME,but choose to link to a bunch of lying crap filled websites written by Janov haters who will not give their names and you consider them to be some sort of authority. I am quoting YOU : Appeals to authority prove nothing or something very close to that in a previous response to me . So it is fine if you do it and a bunch of crap when I do it. Is that the way you see things in this World ? Rules and such apply when they suit your purpose but those very same rules and principals have no meaning when they do not serve your purpose. Well I do not buy into that insane logic for one instant. You can not just run this forum in such an unfair way. What sort of a forum would that be ? By the way,the same sort of authority figures argued and more against such Greats as Galileo, and Darwin. So called authorities have always been appealed to when NEW AND POWERFUL NEW CONCEPTS are presented to the World. Arthur Janov is just such a man. His revolutionary,scientifically based ideas are in fact being embraced by many others such as Dr.Aletha Solter who has created quite a following of her own. You will not find it so easy to trash her name, and yet she adheres to all the concepts Janov originated and her work is based on his prior findings. Janov`s only short coming was his lack of political skill in presenting his revolutionary concepts.To view Janov`s work go to http:http://www.primaltherapy.com and see for yourselves what he has to say. LET THE MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. What is wrong with that ? ...Dr.Syntax

No, not really, because you'll lose and you'll not even realize it. What I want is for you to stop injecting your pet theory into every damned thread where it is completely and wholly irrelevant and unhelpful. Further, I can't believe you used the Galileo Gambit to argue this garbage. That's like 7 pegs on crackpot bingo.

REPLY: I will debate it with you. Anyone can go to: http://www.primaltherapy.com and get a very quick over view of the subject and pursue the subject as thoroughly as you desire there. ...Dr.Syntax

That doesn't explain why it feels good. When we aren't in danger (whether we put ourselves in danger, or whether danger finds us), shouldn't it feel bad? Just as how our knee feels the same way if a hammer is taken to it, whether we bash our own knee with the hammer, or whether someone else is trying to mug is, it still hurts like hell, right?

 

The keyword here is, why does it feel good?!

Reply:Well,the whole purpose of adrenaline and it`s accompanying cortisol is to prepare the body for fight or flight, so it would make sense that this would include toning down your sensitivity to pain. So in a way it would be like alcohol or some other drug that numbs ones awareness of pain. I believe most people are neurotic to one degree or another, which to me means they live in a perpetual state of having to suppress pain. Therefore any thing that helps suppress pain feels better. The same reason people drink and take drugs.And adrenaline and cortisol are powerful hormones that help suppress pain along with energizing the body so there you have it. ...Dr.Syntax

Merged post follows:

Oh, would you please stop with this? It doesn't work. It's been rejected by the psychological community, and it hardly applies to the subject of the thread.

REPLY: That`s your opinion and to quote or paraphrase you: appeals or references to so called authorities or experts [ the one`s you choose ] prove nothing. If the opinion of authorities and experts was any sort of proof then Darwin and a bunch others were proved wrong in their day for a while until people gradually decided they were in fact correct. Anytime anyone has challenged organized groups guiding principals they always meet strong resistance,natually enough. Have you ever taken a look at his work ? I will argue every point he makes with you point by point and win because he is right. We can do it here in this forum and call them the:Syntax vs iNow debate RE: Primal Therapy. I am sitting here saying it so I guess I`ll have to put up or shut up. Are you interested in such a debate ? ...Dr. Syntax

The government would most definitely spend billions if it generates votes!

People have been screaming for "security" and "safety" for years now. Ever since people got unrealistically scared of terrorism it has been the average citizen of Western countries (not the governments) that was asking for security.

 

So, in order to gain votes, the governments gave people what they want. Only recently the debate about privacy started, because it happens to be that the best way to fight terrorism is by monitoring all the people. (That's actually true - it works, though I think it's just not worth it).

REPLY: Benjamin Franklin quote: " Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" unquote. I think Mr.Franklin would agree with you: " it`s not worth it." ...Dr.Syntax

Indeed.

 

The same applies to mass, momentum, charge etc...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

We do understand energy well. But that is not the point. The opening question relates to defining the concept of energy physically.

 

In physics there is a "feedback loop"

 

[math]\textnormal{Physical Concept}\rightleftharpoons \textnormal{Mathematical Concept}[/math]

 

One may have some physical intuition about a concept, but that needs to be expressed mathematically. This mathematical concept then gets feed back into the physical concept.

 

Example, what is mass

 

[math]\textnormal{Mass} \rightarrow \textnormal{Physical Concept} = \textnormal{"Amount of matter"}[/math]

 

[math]\textnormal{Mass} \rightarrow \textnormal{Mathematical Concept} = \textnormal{"Positive Parameter "}[/math]

 

Feed back in

 

[math]\textnormal{Mass} \rightarrow \textnormal{Physical Concept II} = \textnormal{"inertial mass, gravitational mass " etc.}[/math]

 

The second idea of what mass is only arises when one has a mathematical model. (There may then be further refinements of concepts iteratively).

 

It is in this sense, that is we need a mathematical description that is the setting of Feynman's quote.

REPLY: Frankly, I have a very hard time understanding things in what seems to me such an abstract manner. I want to be real clear about this: I see this as the lack of this ability on my part, my mind lacks this ability to comprehend things on this level. I know with absolute certainty, Richard Feynman was a far more intelligent person than I am . ...Dr.Syntax

it's from feynmans lectures here's a link to an online piece of them

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:J6bghC3tpl4J:www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_fa09/Feynman_energy.pdf+It+is+important+to+realize+that+in+physics+today,we+have+no+knowledge+what+energy+is&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi9De2Ux8wsHk1Ujto6gi8ZADUnqaF5w1t5bQOIuq8VPGjGCqZoeQXMHOe4H3QTzpN5iMAbj0_w2S5qPYLLD_HJHCY3EYJZ3GbAh3RpYV3y9Iz696vnbCxjxC7hQE7AWqxNCYn7&sig=AFQjCNHL_sWiMirpk4wU6LJiif8rnQCHQg

REPLY: Thank you moth,there it was and the context it was given in. I still don`t know what to make of it other than he said a lot of things,much of which there is a public record of. I do not consider it one of his best, far from it. That is my opinion. I can surely remember a very many things I have said and would rather I had not said them. For me just about every day. Thank you for digging up that piece. I very much appreciate it. ...Dr.Syntax

But by doing that, you're essentially comparing adrenaline rushes to masochism.

 

We don't take a hammer and bash in our own skulls, just because we like the way it feels. We don't stop eating food because we like the feeling in our stomachs of being hungry. We don't refrain from sex because it hurts to have sex (there are many reasons to be abstinent, but physical discomfort is not one of them).

 

Shouldn't adrenaline be similar? Shouldn't it be one of discomfort? Sort of like how, if we're shot in the arm, we go to the hospital and get it taken out ASAP, just so the pain will subside. If we're hungry, we try and eat something, just so that the hunger will go away.

 

Shouldn't we get ourselves out of harms' way, just so that we don't have to feel the adrenaline anymore?

 

It's my hypothesis that, if we can find the cause of adrenaline's pleasurable feeling, it would provide a hot lead towards significantly reducing crime, for obvious reasons.

REPLY: I think my goal in this important discussion is at least simmular to yours. That is to find ways to reduce and hopefully someday eliminate mankind`s propensity for self destructive behavior.

I do not believe it is NATURAL,or genetically based. I can think of no other species,not one,that has any history ever observed of any of it`s members risking their lives for the fun of it, adrenaline rush, whatever one chooses to call it. Do they at times fight amongst each other ? Yes, but always for an evolutionarily sound reason, such as: mating rights,establishing dominance,expanding or defending territory. Things like that. These sort of events usually do not result in the death of any of the participants and sometimes they do. But these sorts of violent behaviors always have a purpose and are never done for the fun of it. Not truly life threatening behaviors for the thrill of it.

I think there are two reasons this sort of behavior is exhibited by some significant minority of people in our species and that one is the result of the other.

Throughout recorded history mankind has organized itself into groups : clans,tribes,city states,nations and such. What I am discussing here I will call:Cultural evolution. I know I did not coin that phrase. Anyway, in this cultural evolution a sort of natural selection is at work. Those that succeed and propagate do so. A fierce at times competition between the different groups. The groups grew in size and the wars and technologies used to fight them advanced. One of the the successful traits that emerged in this mix of events was the advent of the warrior culture. The dedication the different groups put into creating the best warriors. The methods of training children and young men in particular to develope the necessary skills to be be a good warrior: Strength,courage,fortitude,endurance,loyalty,fidelity. The ability to endure pain,the ability to face extreme danger and fight no matter how fearsome the enemy confronting you or the sheer numbers of foes when vastly outnumbered and to have the ability to stand and fight when stuck in such situations.And the discipline required to manage coordinated manuevers. All these things and more go into making a good warrior or soldier.

Now I will come to my second point in all this. This cultural evolution is the direct cause of much of the mental illness,neurosis that permeates mankind. The Idealization of these traits of warriorism, and the embracement of them by the different groups, that successfully competed against the different groups in this cultural competition.

Those qualities that competed most successfully in this deadly cultural competition are the very qualities that have led to the almost universal neurosis of our species.

Those peaceful Indian tribes that met Columbus on the Island of Hispaniola did not stand a chance against the Spaniards that invaded their Island.

These warrior traits do not come naturally or instinctually. Anyone who has gone through a modern day boot camp can attest to the many times they had to do many,many things they did not feel like doing. The desire to defend one`s self may, but all the crap you endure day in and day out for months on end do not.

Parental treatment of infants and young children is all a part of this cultural war that has been ongoing and endless. A child`s natural need to cry as a way of healing the pains and such all children absorb is denied them. They are trained not to cry. Who among you was NEVER TOLD to quit being a CRYBABY ? This suppressed pain is what is at the heart of neurosis. You end up living in a state of perpetually suppressing pain.

People find many ways of coping with suppressed pain: drugs [ legal prescribed ones or those that are illegal ]. Alcohol,television,obsessive eating, and on and on. This also of course includes THRILL SEEKING AND ADRENALINE RUSHES. Anything and everything our minds can devise to keep all this buried hurt and other feelings we were forced to train ourselves not to feel. There is an answer to all this and it is called PRIMAL THERAPY. ...Dr.Syntax

Richard Feynman said :It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is

 

what do you think?

REPLY: Do you know the source of this statement attributed to Feynman ?quote: " It is important to realize that in physics today,we have no knowledge what energy is "unquote. It seems a very extreme statement for anyone to make. And it seems to me we understand and know as much and more about energy than many other aspects of our Universe. That is why I question it`s authenticity. I hesitate and won`t say more than that. I mean no disrespect for you whatsoever. I am a bit amazed he would say this. ...Dr.Syntax

It has always been clear. The energy is measurable. The energy is exchangeable. The energy is a certain property of a system. There are many forms of energy. Each is well defined. Why to fool ourselves?

REPLY:Hello Bob, you correct me if I am Wrong. I take this to mean you disagree with this statement attributed to Feynmann. I disagree with this statement. It seems to me we understand the nature of energy very well. ...Dr.Syntax

War

City riots

Video games

television

martial arts

 

Since the beginning of recorded history (and maybe before that; we don't know), mankind has craved violence. Television and video games show that violence doesn't need a motive, that people are naturally motivated to commit, or spectate, acts of violence, not out of the dreams of power, money, or territory, but simply by nature of the violence itself.

 

This is likely because of adrenaline. However, adrenaline is supposed to be a survival hormone. If it's designed to help you survive, then how come it feels so good that people will hurle themselves into life-threatening situations, or initiate violence against someone or something else, just to experience adrenaline? Shouldn't adrenaline be an unpleasurable sensation, like that of pain? Shouldn't it be one where you'd want to get out of the danger as quickly as possible just so the adrenaline would stop? Why does adrenaline feel so good?

 

For example, sex feels good because that's how we reproduce, which is necessary for the survival of the human race.

Pain feels bad because it's designed to tell you that something is wrong, and that you need to correct it.

Thirst and hunger are unpleasurable sensations that are designed to tell you that you're dehydrated and/or lacking nutrition.

Why is adrenaline the only sensation that seems to do the exact opposite of what it's designed for?

 

Instead of investing taxpayer money trying to find out why most rats' eyes are black, maybe we should invest our scientific research money into finding out the cause of mankind's lust for bloodshed, so that maybe, just maybe, we can treat the problem at its source, and THEN, we'll have peace on earth!

 

Any thoughts?

REPLY: I do not believe there is a NATURAL desire for violence. I believe the vast majority of people now alive and those that fill our history books were at least moderately and with many, severely neurotic. This almost universal neurosis is caused by inadequate parental practices that are to a large degree accepted as " normal ". The true needs of infants and young children are rarely met in today`s World or that of the past.

I will give an example of a place and time in history that was not full of a bunch of screwball neurotics. That place and time is: Pre-Columbian Hispaniola. That island is now divided into the two Nations: The Dominican Republic and Haiti and lies a short distance east of Cuba.

These people lived a war free lifestyle with no police and such until Columbus and the Spanish arrived on the scene and soon put an end to their pleasant lifestyle and eventually an end to their existence. Columbus himself wrote rather extensively about what wonderful people they were,peaceful and free. Things such as nudity was what was normal for these beautiful people. A very short discussion of these people is available at : [ http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/100.html ] for those interested.

There are other societies described by different sailors accounts of thier adventures in the polynesian Islands. Such accounts include reports of many sailors deserting their ships to take up life with these natives. One of the main attractions was these different native groups casual and fun loving attitudes toward sex. Promiscuity was not looked down on. Sex was/is one of life`s greatest pleasures and these peoples saw no reason not to explore it as much they felt like it.

Non-neurotic people have their infantile needs fulfilled and don`t become violence prone brutes. Dr.Arthur Janov and Dr. Aletha Solter,and many others discuss all this in detail, if you wish to look into it more for yourselves. Primal Therapy are key words to use in doing web searches about all this.

Tragically, for the vast majority of peoples throughout history, they were compelled to produce entire cultures devoted to a significant degree ,to producing men violent enough to at least try and defend the group,tribe,City State, Nation they were members of. Ancient Greece and the Romans, the Vikings, Britain,France,Germany,Japan, the USA and on and on. History is replete with wars and events that illustrate this point.

My point in all this is: that it is not human nature to embrace or in someway enjoy real violence.

Speak to some of the men who have been involved in battles where they knew there was a very good chance they themselves would die. That was not some one sided affair where the outcome was all but assured in their favor. There are some who I have met and discussed such events with who I do believe got some big thrill out of it all. That is up until the time they themselves sustained a severe injury. Lost a leg or an arm. Were horribly disfigured in some way. Try telling someone who has lost an arm or a leg:" That which doesn`t kill you, makes you stronger". I have heard that stupid phrase bandied about by people who have never suffered anything I would call a severe injury. They may have been hit by a bullet or shrapnel, but the injury was not the type that cripples or disfigures them for the rest of their life.

It`s all one big ugly lie. This idealization of violence that gets so very,very well promoted in the movies and on television. I wish some hollywood types and the others this produce this LYING SHIT, the writers,actors, and producer of this lying propaganda ,would be forced to be one of those horribly crippled by war for at least a month or so.The ones who actually fought these battles are largely ignored and the actors who played the roles are the ones who are looked up to as the real heroes . How screwball can a World get ?

I can`t think of one of the current crop of TOUGH GUY actors who ever bothered to join the Army or Marine Corps,Navy or Air Force,or the Coast guard. Not one.

War is not as much fun as it is cracked up to be in the movies. ...Dr.Syntax

The definition of electronegativity is the atom's ability to attract electrons in a bond. A +94 Plutionium atom is unable to bond with anything. As the Cap'n said, you have to be inside a molecule, and electronegativity consequently is referring to it's ability to attract valence electrons, as those are the only electrons used in a chemical bond.

REPLY: I did`t pay close enough attention to Cap`n and I apologize to him for not doing so. This is all new to me so I`m listening to the rest of you and may ask a question but can see I don`t have any answers. ....Dr.Syntax

Merged post follows:

Electronegativity is usually used to describe atoms inside molecules, so you can describe how electrons in the bonds will be shared and so on. Fluorine is thus the most electronegative element when bonded. I don't know about electronegativity of free nuclei and such though.

REPLY: I appologize for not paying closer attention. You WERE DEFINING ELECTRONEGATITY which of course would not include He++ and I was not listening. My apologies sir, I stand corrected, aye,aye Cap`n. ...Dr.Syntax

Merged post follows:

not really. you get cosmic radiation which can be iron nuclei. lightning won't really cause too many high ions. you might get some +3's and +4's but i seriously doubt anything more than that.

 

anyway, the point is moot as electronegativity really only applies to neutral atomic/molecular species.

REPLY: Well, I don`t know what to say. Though I will point out that He++,alpha particles do occur naturally here on Earth and do interact with organisms as does radon gas which also occurs naturally. But apparently my using the term electronegativity to He++ is an inappropriate use of the word. I guess plasma physics is the logical ,proper subject to discuss such issues in. Thanks to all you guys for your input. I hope I did`t offend anyone too much. I am a very confused person generally speaking, not just in this forum. ...Dr.Syntax

no, a -94 charge would be impossible as the electrons would experience a repulsive force capable of ejecting them.

 

a +94 charge is perfectly feasible as we have the good old strong nuclear force to counteract the electrostatic repulsion.

REPLY: Been waiting for you to check in on this one. So,under extreme conditions all electrons are stripped away. Let me ask you this. Are we talking about the sort of temperatures that exist in the sun as a opposed to suppose a super nova event ? Also is a helium ++ be the most electronegative chemical entity that occurs naturally here on Earth ? Like what happens during a lightening strike ? Would that strip all the electrons from oxygen and nitrogen ? ...Dr.Syntax

wouldn't a naked [ce] ^{62}Ni [/ce] nucleus do better? Or would increasing the atomic number merely start to give diminishing returns?

REPLY: This is the sort of question that may provide an answer. I have the feeling some elements out there may very well be able to exist as more electronegative ions than He++. Let me ask you,do you know that if a naked Ni can exist ? I don`t think it can. There are factors that limit the number electrons that can be stripped from an atom. I always thought only the outer layer or shell could be stripped away so to speak. I may very well be wrong about that. I don`t know ,do you ? From all I have been able to find out : only outer shell electrons can be stripped from atoms. Though under extreme conditions such as those that exist in stars for instance I wouldn`t know if this held true. ...Dr.Syntax