MishMish

Seems the name glitch only occurs when the sidebar is displayed. That aside and even if fixed, I would still vote nay, just personal preference

How does one determine what is "axiomatic" and what its validity is

a genius is someone who can make connections between 2+ pieces of information that no one thought of before.

I expect often that's just because their brains are wired a bit diffferently.

Perhaps whether or not it gets them counted as genius or just plain nuts depends on whether or not they can develop that connection in a systematic and useful way, the 99% prespiration part of it

Not on psychic claims per se, but some have claimed that others' moods have colors associated with them. Is it possible that that could represent some form of synesthesia? It's about the only explanation that seems to me it could have some validity, but not even sure how to evaluate it as a possibility

Kevin, first must apologize, sort of. You seem rather vague about what you consider the prevalence of these genetic factors to be. My initial impression was that you think it a selective advantage, and you said "many" people would have the trait, then moved to saying it is rare.

Basically I just want to say make your mind up, except I would not expect there to be enough solid genetic information at this point for you to be able to. Just a guess, that

I do not doubt that they have a different sort of brain. And actually that was more the point of the experiment I mentioned on empathic response. I see no reason offhand they should have chosen to try to beat the test, and took the difference in response to reflect a real difference. But I also only saw it referred to in the context of another article on something quite different, so do not know the details

As I say, is not that I question genetic predisposition and environmental interaction, it is just that of itself that doesn't say very much.

As for the personality profile being associated, correlate was a poor choice of words on my part, and the same will apply to lack of inhibitions. They are not specific to sociopaths is what I meant

As for the last, you have no reason to imply you being new here is a factor for poor reception. Aside from the embedded insult to my intelligence (and of the other posters if generalized) of that comment, I am relatively new here as well. You simply had no basis for that comment whatsoever except idle speculation. And as for you being a student in forensic psychology, that isn't going to carry any weight with me if you can't better articulate your position.

Pulling this out:

"THESE ARE only the positive parts of the problem, these on their own are common amongst normal individuals but it is when they are together with other hayness ones then we begin to build a picture of a serial killer."

Aside from the minor detail that I'm not sure what "hayness" is, perhaps clarifying what features you consider specifc to serial killers would be helpful. I am also still unclear about where you stand on how the basic personality profile you described is involved. From what you have said I get the impression you think the basic personality profile coupled with "bad environment" is sufficient. I question that. That may not be what meant to say, but is how it comes across to me. A related question, is it possible whatever factors predispose someone to being a serial killer would be distinct, but perhaps if not associated with that personality profile they simply wouldn't be very effective serial killers and so not attract notice

Basically, you need to provide a clearer outline of what specific mechanism you think may be in play

Kevin, best I can tell your argument boils down to we're a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influence. Not particularly shocking news, and nothing that addresses psychopaths specifically and nothing that supports your original position that the genetic predisposition is widespread or prevalent, much less that bit about purported better reproductive success

YT (sort of,) how to define empathy seems to be a nuisance. I have seen some define it as the ability to "read" the emotional states of others, and consider psychopaths great at empathy. Others define it more by response. If one can not "read" others well they could not be expected to respond, as in autistics. Seems there's a third element I have seen listed, remember which article but not sure where I put it offhand.

The notion that either good or poor empathy, depending on definition, of itself correlates with sociopathy does not seem reasonable to me. Which does not directly address your question about your winning personality, but maybe someone else can flush out whether or not it actually has any bearing?

And back to Kevin, a comment on lack of inhibitions. Seems to me if oblivious enough one could be quite uninhibited. I don't see that that of itself would correlate either.

Recently saw posted on some other board an article about some questionnaire for detecting the "sociopaths" among job applicants. This was a different one from the more general MMPI that the gov't uses, and was portrayed as being for private companies

I did not save it and a quick google did not find it for me

At any rate, it seems possible to me the basic associated personality profile you described could be more widespread and manifest in less extreme manipulative or destructive ways with only a further subset then having some additional genetic/environmental factors

I saw reference to one experiment comparing empathic response measured by galvanic skin response between "psychopathic" and normal murderers (and I don't know the technical definitions of sociopath or psychopath by the way.) Normal murderers had a normal response, while the psychopaths did not (the same article referenced another experiment on autistics which showed they had normal rsponse as well.) Both single studies, but intriguing none-the-less. And if the results are upheld might be interesting to see what the response of non-murderous sociopaths might be

Fafalone, so you are saying consenting adults, if members of a specific religion which allows but does not require some act, may be given an exemptions while consenting adults who do not belong to some religion will still be forbidden by law to perform the same act?

Are you saying that is the way things are or should be?

If my religion, and assuming I were a member of some religious group, allowed though did not require me to purchase beer before noon on Sundays shouldn't my local grocery then be required to sell it to me? If I were to pursue the hypothetical case and by your outline above?

I still do not see why you apparently do not distinguish between what is obligatory to the religion and what is simply permissible, and why for matters not obligatory you do not consider that discrimination against non-believers

And as an aside, what is offensive to others should not be a factor. It is highly subjective. What is illegal to do in public is another matter. I would prefer that what is illegal should depend more on interfering with the rights of others, but willagree some depends more on what others simply find offensive instead.

Skye, I did as well, and when I initially responded to that point he said I was evading the question of consenting adults. So I asked for a clarification, and here we are.

Unless I am missng something in your comment as well. Are you suggesting the government must (or should) allow any act permitted by a religion to be granted an exemption from general law, even if not required for the faith?

It is not something I follow closely, but the cases I have heard about revolve around matters considered obligatory, at least by some sects, for the faith in question.

Fafalone, why should religion enter in at all?

I may be missing something in your explanation, but you seem to still be restricting it to religious expression

Would it not set up a different discrimination if a Mormon (and ignoring the technicality as Demosthenes pointed out that the modern Mormon church no longer recognizes polygamous marriages) or Muslim were allowed a polygamous marriage and not an atheist? And what if I would rather a polyandrous marriage? While ("classic") Mormonism and Islam may discriminate against women in that respect, would it be appropriate for the govenment to?

If polygamy is to be legalized, why should it be tied to religion in any manner? And if it is to be tied to religion as exemption, should not what is obligatory as opposed to what is simply permitted be a factor in determining whether or not that exemption is granted?

Faflone, what purpose, then, does the "in accordance with their faith" hold? As mentioned in my response, if polygamy were to be allowed, it should be allowed to all.

It looks instead as if you were referring to freedom of religious expression.

I will not hold you to that if that is not what you meant of course, but that is what I was responding to

Fafalone, I am not evading arguments. You had put religious practice, not consent, as the factor of interest, and that is what I was addressing with that point.

Fafalone:

"It's not a loophole"

It's also incorrect, as has been pointed out.

Polygamy is illegal in the States, whether one wants to argue it should be or not is another matter

In addition, am not even sure the religious argument would apply. I know of no religion which defines polygamy as a religious requirement.

And if there is such a religion, am still not sure that would be sufficient. I rather doubt anyone would be allowed to practice human sacrifice as an article of their religiouos faith, even if obliatory to that religion. So I am not convinced that simply being a religious requirement trumps all current laws

I would say that if polygamy were granted as an option for adherents of some faiths, however, it should be granted to all as an option.

None of which is to make any personal statement on polygamy itself

I think the first step to smartening people up might be critical thinking classes in the schools. I did not have anything of the sort, but have heard good reports from those who have.

YT:

"if an act (ANY act) will result in civil unrest of unknown consequences, is it right go forwards with this act?"

Short answer, depends on the act

The civil rights movement comes to mind straight off the top

But I would also question the logic. Perpetuating an injustice is no guarantee of maintaining civil order either. For a small enough minority or with good enough internal security apparatus you may be able to keep unrest to a minimum, but it will not go away under those conditions

Whether or not homosexuality is natural, and what percentage of the population may or may not be, is irrelevant. That was gone over in the homosexuality facts thread, the natural argument at least. The question of is one of civil rights. If it causes sufficient harm to others in society there is justification for banning it, if not there is not.

Why can't people keep things simple

Problem is, people define "harm" quite differently.

Those who maintain homosexual marriage will harm society are going to have show some causal link. Otherwise, and as I do not expect them to be able to, we are left with a segment of the population being denied certain rights

Demosthenes, your comment, if I may hazard a guess, is patronizing because it implies that Fafalone's argument is based on pure emotionalism.

That really is the primary criticism aimed at your position. Not sure I would use the word patronizing, but for you to suggest that you are in a better position to judge an emotional from a logical argument (and making no comment here on the quality of the logical argument) when you have not yet demonstrated the ability to construct a logical argument on this question is a bit over the top.

Nothing personal. Frankly, from what I have seen you have been severely let down by the educational system.

What you need to do is divorce the emotionalism from your argument and look at it objectively. As a starter, it would help if you could better clarify why the question of homosexuality arouses such an emotional reaction in yourself. Simply saying that is wrong or immoral does not do that. All that does is restate your conclusion.

Nor will appeal to scripture suffice as objective argument, a caution as I do not specifically remember that you have. While it may be reason for you to hold the personal view, and you are certainly entitled to your personal view whether I agree with it or not, it does not address the question of what legal policy should be and why

The primary problem with bestiality is that the animal can not give informed consent. As such, it falls under abuse instead

Faflone, I think you are expecting too much of people, basically. There are a lot of things people "should" know or educate themselves about. Not all such information is readily availble or in comprehensible form, even for the edcated layman, and in many instances we are not dealing with what I would call the educated layman. It is not practical to think everyone should become a specialist to navigate the daily world

Nor is information alone sufficient if one also requires skills for utilizing that information in a practical or effective manner.

Despite your nod that the system is flawed, you do not seem to have fully accepted that and instead interpret the actions of others as if it were not.

Fafalone:

I agree it is not society's responsibility to protect people from themselves. Society does so because it also does not hold people responsible for their actions.

But a very important part of the equation i tihnk you continue to overlook is the information and skills level people have avavilable.

Unless that information is made available in comprehensible form and people are taught the skills they need to deal responsibly with situations they may encounter, most simply put they will not be able to. As society, instead of addressing the basic problem of making that information and those skills available, we vacillate between picking up the tab for irresponsible acts and attempting to legislate against stupidity. Neither can or will work.

The framework in which the questions are asked needs to be changed.

Fafalone:

I think getting away from this fault and blame language would be a good place to start.

Understanding why one person gets addicted and not another may be a better focus. Assuming the individual knows going in whether he will or not however does not seem reasonable to me. I doubt anyone goes in hoping or expecting to get addicted.

Basically, I figure people are going to make the best choice they can with whatever knowledge, skills or resources they have available. That does not mean their decision will be what I call a positive choice, misery is relative and sometimes all one can do is make a negative choice of choosing the least bad from a set of bad options. Nor does it mean it is going to be a "good" decision. But it is not possible to understand that decision unless you can understand what factors the individual is working with in coming to it.

As for ignorance being no excuse, have had more cause to think on that. First, and to reitereate, do not think "excuse" has any place here, though understanding the reasons very well may. I do not hold people responsible for what has not occurred to them. I do evaluate how they respond when given new information or when their assumptions are challenged. That works both ways, might add, if you are challenging my assumptions then I in effect am challenging yours, and I no doubt have information which pertains to my situation that you will be unaware of. Keeping that in mind may allow for a constructive approach to the situation that does not involve simply casting blame

Fafalone:

"If you have an addictive personality, and try the 2nd most addictive drug known to man (nicotine is first), then once again it goes back to being your own fault."

That would assume you know you have an addictive personality, know the addictive nature of the drug in question, and have been taught some skills for how to handle situations which play into the addictive nature

While legally one must assume responsibility for one's actions, I do not find it very helpful to lay blame when someone may not have had the necessary knowledge or skills.

The only real questions are what to do now, and what may be learned in terms of teaching those skills or making available that knowledge to others so that they can make responsible choices

NSX:

"U.S. couples who want to get married will just come up to Canada to do that"

That does not mean it would be recognized in the uS, which is where it would count for Americans

Mooey:

"Crocodiles (though a bit different in size) were existing in the jurassic era, along with the dinosaurs. So did whales, btw."

Do you have a source for that bit about the whales, seems just a bit off to me

Education has always been the reserve of a few, but I think the consequences are more apparent perhaps the further the economy moves from subsistence.

As for the current system, hard for me to comment as it's been so long since have been in school and am only tangentially at best involved with others who are in school now. But I can agree an emphasis on the underlying principles, so that they can be applied to novel situations, and making explicit the relevance of the principles to real world situations would benefit.