MonDie

Dimreeper, you are right, race/ethnicity isn't the only form of human grouping upon which religious differences may be upheld. Incidentally, the nonconformity of autistics isn't entirely due to deficits in social ability... _Rick_. The original Asch conformity experiment had several people answer a line-judging question where the correct answer is obvious. In the experimental condition, the other participants were told to all give the same incorrect answer (for example, they all choose D when the correct answer is obviously B). Most people give the incorrect answer in the experimental condition, but autistics appear less susceptible to this effect. This could explain why autistics are less likely to drink even though they are susceptible to depression and prone to substance abuse problems. Social conformity and autism spectrum disorder: a child friendly take on a classic study (NIH) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24126871 People with autistic tendencies vulnerable to drinking problems (Washington University of St Louis) https://source.wustl.edu/2014/05/people-with-autistic-tendencies-vulnerable-to-alcohol-problems/ An interesting question emerges: are autistics failing to see the value that religion has to our society, or are they just put off by, or less susceptible to, the stupidity that arises from group conformity and religious conformity?

I find the reverse more plausible: that without racism there might be no religion. "Religion" tends to refer to culturally-influenced manifestations of spirituality. Meanwhile, I'm pondering my social psychology course and all the ways in which group pressure can make people do horrible (and horribly stupid) things. Maybe religious people are okay as individuals, but as a group they do terrible things. This perspective shifts the focus away from the traits of religious individuals, and toward the ways in which religious individuals are dispersed or organized.

Remember that serotonin isn't just important to mood disorders, but also to anxiety disorders, OCD, and borderline personality disorder. I'm trying to find a free-to-read pubmed publicatin that I read previously. They identified a neuroanatomical difference that mediated the relationship of Neuroticism to depression (or, longitudinally, the onset of depression?), and I think it was reduced hippocampal volume (the brain region started with H), but alas I cannot find the publication. It seems that Neuroticism comes first, ultimately contributing to the eventual onset of depression. Many disorders associated with heightened Neuroticism are improved or have a better prognosis with SSRIs. For example, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders are treated with dopamine antagonists, and these drugs temporarily resolve psychosis, but there is no direct, experimental-longitudinal evidence that they actually slow the progression of schizophrenia. On the other hand, there is evidence that the anti-depressant lithium may have a protective effect in Ultra High Risk (UHR) individuals, but alas I don't know much about this line of research, and the finding is probably complicated by the fact that many UHR individuals go on to develop psychotic depression (psychotic symptoms during depression), whereas psychosis in the absence of mood symptoms is requisite for a diagnosis of schizophrenia or shizoaffective disorder. This is probably further complicated by the fact that depression may be a heterogenous disorder that requires a different treatment depending on the case. There is depression, atypical depression, psychotic depression (serotonin + cortisol). Some research has found that many cases of depression are due to low omega-3 fatty acids, and in these cases omega-3 is an effective treatment.

Presents a Venn digram, "Of course, not all autistics are atheist, and not all atheists are autistic" *rolls eyes* *throws up alittle*

By the way, it does apply to scientists too. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ Along the way, I would like to remind our religious readers of what autism is. Children with Autism have Extra Synapses in Brain (Columbia college) http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2014/08/21/children-autism-extra-synapses-brain/ Heritability of autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis of twin studies (NIH.gov) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26709141

Do you want me to tell everyone else what you are suggesting for you? Okay, we might be urging them toward belief in God, which is why they adapt the concept in a way that is acceptable both to themselves and to society at large. Given that science is centered around the objective pursuit of truth, this might be a problem, especially if we have stigmatized the people with scientific proclivities who failed to conform. Very good, dimreeper. That's an excellent point.

I can think of two functions of the news: keeping everyone on the same page in political discussions, and mobilizing an immediate response to recent events. The problem is that news programs are, and will always be, shallow at best and biased at worst. IMO most viewers will lack sufficient background knowledge about any particular topic to even notice the bias or to make use of what they've learned. edit Given that politics is frequently discussed on the news, I suppose that people interested in politics will have more background information. In that context, the news could be seen as facilitating information about politics, which is arguably an important subject matter to all.

^ per dimreeper's quote. This is reminiscient of many autistics' ideas about God. Many of them see God in the natural workings of the universe rather than seeing God in the exceptions, the "miracles". Many people with high-functining autism (autism with a normal IQ) identify as atheist or agnostic, and others yet may say that their religious views, and perhaps those pertaining to God, are self-created. Part of autism includes "repetitive behaviors" and a need for order and scheduling with a particular rigidity and resistance to change, which I suppose is why they become so deeply engorged in one and only one subject matter, often a scientific or mathematical subject matter. It is sometimes speculated that scientists have a higher preponderance of the genetic variants that dispose to autism.

Incidentally, I was just viewing this thread within the last 30 minutes. Afterwater, I entered the URL for scienceforums.net, and I saw the scienceforums front page before being redirected to this: It literally happened 40 seconds ago. edit: I am on public wifi, so it might not even be your site. edit: I was not logged in.

If it appears benevolent it may only be duping you, so it's pretty much innocent until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. However, it occurred to me that this thing's need to influence you is inversely proportional to however much influence over reality it already has. If it were omnipotent, it wouldn't need you. If it were virtually powerless, then it would be desparate for your cooperation. However, the importance of influencing you in particular may utlimately hinge on a lot of factors, for example: your level of susceptibility to its influence; your potential for causing dramatic change, e.g. dramatic destruction change; or your potential to induce changes that are specifically related to its goals. However, the importance of influencing you in particular may utlimately hinge on a lot of factors, for example: your level of susceptibility to its influence; your potential for causing dramatic change, for example dramatic destructive change; or your potential to induce changes that are specifically related to its goals.

I did have an interesting thought after reading the free publication "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf Basically there are two things that run society: money (elite status), and organized groups (interest groups). [edit] in my opinion...[/edit] behaving ethically or morally has two components: determining the right decision, and following through with it. I realized the paradox that these organized groups may be very good at getting what they want, and yet they may be very bad at determining what is for the best because of groupthink. One powerful interest group is the Christian Coalition of America, but this would by no means be exclusive to religious, organized groups. The NRA is a good example of a powerful interest group that sees everything in black and white. The NRA seems to want zero gun regulations no matter how well-informed some particular regulation may be, and that's probably the product of groupthink. Overview of powerful interest groups: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/11/18/fortune.25/index1.html Regarding the tendency toward secondary psychopathy in the non-religious (which I discussed on page 12), it occurred to me that women and gay men are more likely to suffer from borderline personality disorder. It is thought that the primary psychopath is more similar to a narcissist, whereas the secondary psychopath is more similar to a borderline. Incidentally, women and gay men are some other disadvantaged people whose rights are being attacked by these organized groups, for example by the National Right to Life Committee and the Christian Coalition. Alas, if the problem is that organized groups tend to be both powerful and stupid, then this may very well be a problem that goes beyond religion and, furthermore, would not include all modes of religiousness. It arguably wouldn't be a problem if everybody was allowed to talk to, or receive communication from, the god and to come to their own conclusions about what the god wants. Alas I dislike how a lot of Christianity divides the divine into good spirits and evil spirits. If someone actually demonstrated a divine connection, many Christians would dismiss it as the work of Satan if they don't hear what they want to hear. From what I've gathered, superficially perhaps, there seems to be a history of Christians lumping the gods of other religions togethor under the label of Satan.

Double-checking may be possible if it is not truly omniscient, and you might try to devise some method of determining where its bindspots are. Alas, determining what it does know should be easier than determining what it does NOT know, for it may already know what your double-checking methods will be and then trick you into thinking it doesn't know as much as it really does. That's the other problem. If it already knows how you'll double-check its claims, it may start fibbing only when it knows it can get away with it. This is where the situation diverges a bit depending on what options you choose. If you are asking the questions, then this thing must: (A) tell the truth; (B) cover the true answer with a conspicuous refusal to answer; © devise an answer that it already knows will appear plausible upon further investigation; or (D) or else it needs enough influence over your reality to make some false answer seem plausible. If you aren't asking the questions but only receiving information, then it must do A, C or D. Keep in mind that it doesn't necessasrily have enough influence to pull off a convincing D, and even if it does have enough influence, it doesn't necessarily want to expend that influence on duping you rather than pursuing its own interests, whatever they may be.

It beats eeny, meeny, miny, moe. Anyway, the hypothetical scenario is that you know it is extremely knowledgeable or even omniscient, which means it could be very useful to ask it. The dilemma is that it might be using you, e.g. providing information that is useful and yet not quite accurate, providing only the information it wants you to have, or giving you wrong information in cases where you cannot double-check. This isn't an entirely realistic scenario. Any other human with enough knowledge or influence could dupe you, albeit not to the same degree, and there may soon be situations that resemble this one, e.g. powerful, government-run AI operating the information highway (the Internet). Not to mention that a large chunk of the population already believes in this situtation via their religious beliefs.

You lack imagination. This is an exaggerated form of a situation we deal with every day, and we are looking to this being for information, for guidance, not love and affection.

We're all reluctant to trust a person who is dumb or carelessly incorrect, but what about a really, really smart person? You appear to have established communication with an omniscient mind or mind(s). Considering that it could liberate you to pursue your own ends or manipulate you to serve its own ends, should you listen to it? Do you even pay attention if it might only use you? What if you can't necessarily double-check what it's saying? What if it gets something wrong, on accident or on purpose? What if you aren't asking the questions, just receiving the information it chooses to provide? What if it is communicating with an unknown number of others, and might influence your reality through its influence on the others? What might this thing be anyway, and what might its motives be? It seems strangely reminiscent of the recent US election actually.

Quite so, we have to consider the cost to others before taking the deal for our own gain. How will it effect everything else? However, as Delta pointed out, eternal life doesn't mean eternal youth. There's really a deeper problem here. The question should not be "Should I exist tomorrow?" Everyday we change by forgetting, remembering, bruising, healing, adapting, and aging. What we actually want is to remember but not forget, to heal but not bruise, to adapt but not age, but nobody is continually existing tomorrow as they exist today and such a situation might not be desireable if it entails anterograde amnesia. The better question is "What should I become tomorrow?" or more broadly "What should exist tomorrow?" I think living eternally implies a body that (re)constructs itself more quickly than it is destroyed or deteriorated. This probably implies exceptional health, which is desireable in its own right.

Not enough data points. Is there any objective attempt to quantify the views of congressmen that we could use for a longitudinal analysis? Maybe we need to survey them regularly, referencing the most powerful interest groups. Do you agree with the NRA? 1 2 3 4 5 Do you agree with the Christian Coalition? 1 2 3 4 5 Or more objectively, how often their voting on a law is consistent with that group's position on the law.

From a utilitarian standpoint, of which I'm an adherent, more living is generally better given that living is the only way happiness is possible. An adherent of rational egoism, however, would want themself to live longer. From a utilitarian standpoint it shouldn't matter whether I personally live longer as long as life continues. I only behave selfishly at times because it is instinctual, but rationally I acknowledge that my future self is really another person from my present self that deserves no special prioritization.

I'm looking for a transcript or recording of exactly what Julian Assange said about Russian involvement in the breaches/leaks. I can only find media-mediated reports from the likes of Fox News etc. I wish wikileaks would release their own statement instead of going through news agencies, but that might go against their promise of anonymity. Apparently Julian Assange did the interview on Fox News.... Fox News. Would nobody host the interview except Fox, or did they just offer him the most payment? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/?utm_term=.246b838c5c3f edit... Oh my. Is Wikileaks no longer unbiased? Are they antisemitic? I thought they revealed antisemitism within the DNC!! http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikileaks_might_have_meant_by_that_anti_semitic_tweet.html edit... At least Julian Assange denied what was only hear-say accusations of antisemitic comments. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-jewish-conspiracy-comments On a related note, the United Nations recently ruled that Assange was arbitrarily detained (for alleged sexual assault) by the Swedish government and United Kingdom. http://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E edit... I digress. I think Hannity is ambiguous when he asks about "get[ting] the information from Russia", but Assange explicitly states that their source was not the Russian government.

II ran across this definition of "spirituality" in a research publication I was reading. Five-Factor Model Personality Traits, Spirituality/Religiousness, and Mental Health among People Living With HIV https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739880/ I think even this definition has some shortcomings. Clearly most people think of spirituality as relating to some kind of god, so that would exclude atheists. However even defining "spirituality" as a belief in the "transcendant" is to define it in terms of a person's conclusion rather than their mode of thought. I think spirituality often refers to a very literal "search for meaning". Spiritual people don't only see meaning in human social interaction, they see meaning in dreams, visions, mundane physical events, et cetera. This is probably why "Mentalizing Deficits Constrain Belief in a Personal God (Norenzayan, 2012)". I argue that this definition is superior because the mode of thought, the search, is more psychologically fundamental than the conclusion, the conclusion being highly influenced by the cultural context and also the randomness of personal experience. Defined this way, an atheist might still be considered spiritual despite a bias toward inconclusiveness or toward non-theistic interpretations (e.g. aliens, undiscovered forces). It's not something I would normally talk about, but I did have a bizarre experience this morning. I've felt a bit "out of my mind" lately, and I'm intrigued by the possibility of talking to my own dream state. I had a lucid recently but unfortunately ended it before thinking to ask questions. This morning I was paralyzed. My eyes were closed but I could feel my body. I was afraid and said, or more likely mumbled, "This is a dream. This has to be a dream. Wake up. Wake up. Wake up." Just before awakening, however, I heard a whisper tell me, "You're okay". There are two related personality disorders that are disposed to dissociative experiences: the borderline and the schizotypal. Borderline personality, unlike schizotypal, is correlated with higher performance on the Reading The Mind in the Eyes Test. Their symptoms seem to be mostly related to diminished serotonergic activity, which should create a less compliant and therefore less religious disposition. On the other hand, comorbid schizotypal symptoms are common in borderline, which would include the tendency toward unusual spiritual beliefs, which I could see arising from their dissociative tendencies. Schizotypal Personality Disorder: A Current Review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182925/ My main problem is with a being that's both all-powerful and all-knowing, and I could be considered a strong atheist in that respect. However, I'm very open to the possibilities otherwise.

I don't really consider it evidence when it will take so long to check it for myself. If you sent me the data I would gladly post it to this thread in a spoiler box. That's what I did on the Donald Trump thread, plus adding instructions on using free software (wxMaxima) to do the calculations from the data. Tampitump, you don't need a ban. You can make a garbage email address, verify it to SFN, then forget passwords to both. Make the passwords super uncrackable (fifty characters, random, plenty of symbols). I never did look for research on religiosity using the six-factor HEXACO inventory. Must do. It's the best I could do. Honesty-humility, the big five, and the five-factor model. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16138875 The abstract appears to confirm that those two facets are indeed the most related to honesty-humility. Furthermore, those two facets don't correlate with Agreeableness as well as the other four facets, thus why they split off in a six-factor level analysis and why religiosity wasn't significantly related to those facets.

Big crush. Kate Nash - Skeleton Song I'm still stuck with CDs I burned half a decade ago, but it's not all bad. I also like album The Soundings by ironically titled band Blue States.