--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> My understanding was that the Edsel's grill reminded people of a
> vagina which deterred male and female buyers alike.

The conventional 'heart' symbol, looks nothing at all like a
human heart.  To my eye, this pink, two-winged shape
looks very much like a stylised representation of a vagina.
Given the context in which it's often used, I'd say that this
interpretation is quite a likely one, and I'm sure that other
people have thought the same thing.

None of that puts all sorts of people off plastering this symbol
across all manner of merchandise, goods and fashion items.  I'm
curious to know why this should be the case while it's suggested
that a vagina-like radiator grill would put people off.

Andy Morley

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Robert Karl Stonjek
<stonjek@...> wrote:

> And who is this 'you' that forgets the wife and switches attention to the
> tiger?  A think you are missing an elephant in the room - you have
> introduced a 'we'.  To eliminate recursion, there can be no independent
> 'we'.
>
> The only way to solve the problem is to toss the viewer into the soup and
> blend him/her in.  Now you have a soup complete with viewer.  In a practical
> sense, the view includes the viewer, each new ingredient added to the soup
> causes a ripple through the entire brew.

You are so right! And I really enjoyed the essay. It is always a
pleasure to read he results of a clear brain at work.

I (here we go again..) believe that the following might apply: In a
brain cellular activity can be caused via two different routes.

1) Energies external to the central nervous system smash into specific
structures whose activity is electrochemical. These are of course are
sensory receptors. As the information becomes electrochemical, it is
understood by our nervous system and can be conveyed from neuron to
neuron.

2) There are circuits at least in the brain stem that have intrinsic
rhythms of activation. This means, that they do not need to be aroused
by input, but can in turn activate other neurons.

Some combination of neurons active at one time is consciousness (the
we, the homunculus). The amount of neurons that are needed for a
minimum of consciousness is not known, neither is their location. Most
probably they are widely distributed or need a specific rhythmicity in
input to cause consciousness. Or both.

This conscious network/networks contains all qualia of all senses, all
emotions, all thoughts, all memories remembered, everything the brain
is at any one moment aware of.

So the example of a brain reading and suddenly "wanting to become
aware of the fact that it is reading" is here a bottom-up process.
Something downstream activates both this urge and the resulting
"metaconsciousness".

In this "model", the conscious network doesn't have any efferents,
i.e. it cannot cause any motor output to occur. Instead, it is
informed of coming motor activity and it feels like it is causing this
activity.

Sunshine!
Sussa
>
> Robert
>
>



--
Sussa
sussab@...

--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "andy_morleyuk" <andy@...>
wrote:

> I believe that when men sell their sexual services, the normal
> term is 'gigolo'.  I'd say that for a variety of reasons, THAT is
> a whole different ball-game ;)

Here again I suspect statistics would reveal a different picture from common
beliefs. It is my understanding that almost all male prostitutes' clients are
homosexual men, not women. That fact itself suggests that the origin of the
behavior is intertwined with economics and other social issues in a more complex
manner than simply being the sale of a product for payment. The thought of
gigolos selling themselves to women has a certain romantic flavor about it and
turns up in the movies from time to time, but probably does not reflect  the
actual reality of what is going on.

The risks associated with prostitution (both male and female varieties) are
somewhat different from the risks associated with other occupations. In the area
where I live at least, there are significant dangers from johns, ranging from
beatings to murder. Add to these risks the constant need to be wary of the
police and the health risks. What's more, when prostitutes do get into trouble
and report violence, there is a tendency for the police to look the other way,
as if it could be expected and was deserved. The risks, such as they are, are
more like the risks of being engaged in crime rather than the risks of dangerous
but lawful and approved occupations.

Best regards,

Donald W. Zimmerman
Vancouver, BC, Canada
dwzimm@...
http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/index.html

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> >
> > Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> > > **
> > > That is a different solution to a different problem.  I am looking at
> > > the subjective experience of consciousness ie as we experience it.
> > > Emulating consciousness is a slightly different problem.  Indeed,
> your
> > > model doesn't require consciousness to operate, so I would say it
> > > mirrors the workings of the non-conscious brain.
> >
> > There are other models that do not require infinite recursion.
> Suppose what you "experience" (e.g. sense) is projected onto some spot
> in the brain. (I am not saying this is right. I am only showing the
> possibility of finite recursion.) Let us say that everything projected
> to this spot in the brain is "subjective experiencing". I put the
> "subjective experience" because it apparently means a lot to  a lot of
> people and we are used to talking that way for centuries.
> >
> > Now, suppose there is competition between different modules for
> access to this spot. (This is done on computer buses. Modules need
> various kinds of access, and bus-arbitration methods are put into
> place to give controlled access to the resources via the bus(es) to
> various modules.) There might be priorities given so that whichever
> module has access gets 100% of this spot. So if you see a tiger, you
> forget that your wife was yelling at you on the cell phone :-)
> >
> > Or the arbitration mechanism can be done so that all of them are
> projected onto the spot but with different weights; so you
> "subjectively feel" all of them but not all of them as strongly.
> >
> > Now, all you need is another module. Say you are looking at the
> screen and reading. Then all of a sudden you want to be aware (or
> become aware without consciously wanting to) that you are reading.
> Well, you need  a module that periodically gains access to this spot
> and projects the contents of this spot (with a little twist) so that
> you become aware of what you are/were doing. It can be timed, and it
> can be triggered by different events.
> >
> > In order to create other things, like "contemplation". For what?
> Need? Insecurity about the future? Boredom? You need only posit a
> finite number of such modules. And you need some kind of an
> arbitration scheme (like bus control) to gain access to this infamous
> spot.
> >
> > Is this the Cartesian Theater?
> >
> *RKS:*
> First paragraph sounds like
> *"3)* The view and viewer are temporally isolated so that regress can
> not occur (eg the remembered present);"
> listed in my essay at the root of this thread.  Gerald Edelman has
> such a model.
>
> So, how are you going to concentrate all this info in one point?

A spot is  a module in the brain. For example, lots of things seem to go
through the hippocampus. Maybe that
is something like an arbitrated bus (an intelligent one) that
distributes the signals.

> How are you going to combine sight and sound and everything else?
>
Look at a PC. It's got everything. There are no "picture electrons" or
"sound electrons".


> And who is this 'you' that forgets the wife and switches attention to
> the tiger?  A think you are missing an elephant in the room - you have
> introduced a 'we'.
No, there is a society of modules. The only thing needed is to connect
this to something that we constantly
and subjectively refuse to give up; e.g. "subjective view".

That can't be much more than an axiom. Even arithmetic is done with axioms.


> I think you have doubled the problem.
>
> The only way to solve the problem is to toss the viewer into the soup
> and blend him/her in.  Now you have a soup complete with viewer.

The "explanation" everyone looks for is the "subjective view". That is
all anyone/everyone "feels" or "views" or "experiences".
That has to be given. Nobody has produced any explanation for that yet,
and likely nobody yet will. It's like asking, how does
a computer feel when it does graphics.




> In a practical sense, the view includes the viewer, each new
> ingredient added to the soup causes a ripple through the entire brew.
>
> Robert
>

--
Regards,

H.M. Hubey

 
-----
> --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Merle Lester" <bmlester@...> wrote:
>
> > This all depends on your attitude and outlook on life.
> > Boring .... if you are starving no food is boring.
> > And as for sex, please explain the notion of "limited variety."
> > Merle
> Donald W. Zimmerman
> Yes, when food is scarce, getting any food at all and perhaps eating the same thing at every meal is hardly looked upon as boring. For affluent human beings who are accustomed to gourmet delicacies in abundance, eating nothing but bread at every meal would be intolerable. As for sex, I would guess that scarcity and affluence enter into the picture in a similar way. Some, but not all people consider "variety" to be important and seek out multiple sexual partners. Other people who stick to one partner consider a variety of types of sexual activity with that same partner to be important, and so on. I would suppose that all this is highly variable from one culture to another. My interest is not so much in the extent or prevalence of these various activities as in the fact that sexual behavior is plastic and modifiable in humans to a greater extent than in other organisms. That seems to pose theoretical issues.
>
RKS:
One gets married for bread-and-butter sex...honey costs extra.
 
Robert
 
Depends who you marry Robert!
Merle

At 03:54 PM 11/24/2008 +0000, Francine A. Burlingame wrote:

>"Steve Moxon" <stevemoxon3@...> wrote:
> >
> > The "silly(ness)" is Francine's.
> >
> > I make virtually nill income out of either my book or my theory.
>
>FBurlingame:
>
>But you can't deny that they bring you status in the male hierarchy
>and higher mate value for as long as you can keep the public's
>interest in them alive.
>
>Your original diatribe against feminists had nothing to do with the
>thread and was unnecessarily confrontational (see below). My thought
>was that your intention was to provoke an emotional, anti-male
>response from the women on the list so you would have an opportunity
>to rehash your anti-female views.
>
>However, the women who could be relied upon to respond emotionally
>have already been "driven off" in a verifiable demonstration of
>hostile dominance over individual women by a sub-group of men. (grin)

I think, Francine, that women here previously have responded not just
in emotional ways,  but with sound information. However, the frequent
response is just what you have received from Moxon - a diatribe about
"feminists" - Moxon's word for "women" - just about all women.

And, yes, most women have been driven off. I can't be bothered
responding much any more. I know what I am going to hear, and from
whom. It has become a waste of time, and worse, boring. I do not
need to hear Moxon's broken record, nor the passive aggressive
attitude toward the views of women. This group has lost most of
its potential by becoming a one-note expression of male insecurity
expressed as hostility.

I now read very little here - mostly the informational news
forwards,  some of which I still send myself as I send them
to my own groups, and simply add this group's address into the
Bcc heading.

I actually hit "sort by sender" to read just the posts of
people here whose views I value, such as, for example, Helen
Fisher, and yourself. Sometimes Robert - but he's not always
reliable either, and is a Moxon fan when it comes to views of
women all too often.

Moxon and others don't need to hear what most women think of
anal sex, or of prostitution or of sexual abuse of children,
- we've discussed these topics before, and I find no reason
to believe that the response to the views of any women would
be considered of any value to the discussion. Anything to do
with the abuse of women is enjoyed rather sadistically here.
Moxon's voice must speak for many men here or he would not be
still posting the same things so voluminously.

I see little opposition to his sneering attitude toward women
from many here, and that only occasionally. Too many of the
responses to Moxon from former list women were also not posted
by Robert, which is one reason so many have just left.

I am relieved that you are here to respond - it has taken the
responsibility off me. (g) Keep up the good work. :) Let me know
if you go on vacation - I may fill in for you at such times. :)
Though - heaven forbid I should be emotional - but I have it
on good authority that the balanced and well-functioning brain
is not healthy without balancing intellect and feeling - they
are intertwined for ultimate functioning and humanness. :)


Warmly,

Julienne


> >From Moxon's original post:
>"It is interesting that feminists have not come out in their usual
>apoplexy about this practice. This is because they abhor vaginal sex
>above all, as being in their analysis the ultimate inappropriate
>invasion -- the supposed root of male 'power' (sic). Sex with
>penis/anus is just as between male homosexuals, which is not viewed
>as a manifestation of a male 'power' advantage. On this bizarre
>political view, anal sex is preferable as somerhow more 'right on'!"

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether
man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd U.S. President
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Join us at Chaos-stars@yahoogroups.com
Julienne's New Blog: http://www.myspace.com/youandthecosmos  What Do We
Want From This Election?
Radio: "You and the Cosmos" Tuesdays, 4:30 pm EDST
http://whrwfm.org/listenlive.php

Dr. Laurence Krute
Associate Dean--Graduate Advising
School of Education
Manhattanville College
2900 Purchase Street Purchase, NY 10577
voice:914 323-5366
fax:914 323-5493

--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Moxon" <stevemoxon3@...>
wrote:

> The notion of large-scale kidnapping of women for enslavement by Arabs is a
supreme
piece of xenophobic paranoia. It has a semblence of truth because there is no
doubt that
Arab driven slavery in Africa still goes on. But international 'trafficking' of
women for
prostitution has been shown to be a myth by researchers, who show that the
figures are
simple misrepresentations of voluntary cross-border movement by women seeking
work
as prostitutes. [This was notably the conclusion of research for/by the UN,
which despite
this still carries the headline finding that 'trafficking' is a big problem!
This indicates just
how moribund an organisation is the UN, not that we didn't well know.] You might
have
noticed that Arabs generally are remarkably wealthy, and have no trouble getting
women
to work as prostitutes simply by paying them.
>
> None of this is to deny that there isn't some 'trafficking', of course. There
would have to
be some for the 'white slave trade' fabrication not to be laughed out of town
completely.
>
> With the now very small percentage of prostitution that is on-street: the
other
supposed manifestation of coercion -- the 'pimp' -- has long been an endangered
species, if he ever wasn't. His supposed presence is another gross
misrepresentation. The
>guys hanging around red-light areas are the relatives or friends or boyfriends
of the
>girls who have been asked to or who have volunteered (or insisted) to keep an
eye on
>them.


As recently as 20 years ago, organized crime played a major role in 
prostitution in many places, at least in North America if not in Europe. The
crime families controlled how and where it was carried out, who got the lion's
share of the money, payments to police and politicians to look the other way,
which brothels and massage parlors cities were allowed to do business, and so
on.

I'll bet there is still a connection. Maybe today more women are breaking out on
their own as independents, but it was not always that way. And some of those
independents still have to pay off various people. One of the main deterrents to
opening a massage parlor was, and may still be, not the disapproval of
morality-minded citizens or the police, but rather the deadly force exerted by
competitors.

Along the same lines, in addition to women being "forced" into prostitution in
the sense of kidnapping, there needs to be another category called being
"scammed" into it.  Naive women are recruited in Asia with promises of big
earnings if they come to North America as "escorts," "models," etc  , not sex
workers. When they get here, however, they find that the money is not what was
promised and they have to work in massage parlors for long hours and for years
to pay for room and board as well as to pay off the money loaned for passage
over on the ship (room and board at inflated prices and passage money at
exorbitant interest.)

Again there is little control of the business by the women themselves, and most
of the money goes to criminals. Drug addiction is rampant, and often occurs
after working a while as a prostitute, not before. The sum total is not a whole
lot different from forced labor or kidnapping.

Donald W. Zimmerman
Vancouver, BC, Canada
dwzimm@...
http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald W. Zimmerman

To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 5:26 PM

Subject: Re: [evol-psych] News: Why Do Men Buy Sex?

--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "andy_morleyuk" <andy@...> wrote:

> I believe that when men sell their sexual services, the normal
> term is 'gigolo'. I'd say that for a variety of reasons, THAT is
> a whole different ball-game ;)

Here again I suspect statistics would reveal a different picture from common beliefs. It is my understanding that almost all male prostitutes' clients are homosexual men, not women. That fact itself suggests that the origin of the behavior is intertwined with economics and other social issues in a more complex manner than simply being the sale of a product for payment. The thought of gigolos selling themselves to women has a certain romantic flavor about it and turns up in the movies from time to time, but probably does not reflect the actual reality of what is going on.

The risks associated with prostitution (both male and female varieties) are somewhat different from the risks associated with other occupations. In the area where I live at least, there are significant dangers from johns, ranging from beatings to murder. Add to these risks the constant need to be wary of the police and the health risks. What's more, when prostitutes do get into trouble and report violence, there is a tendency for the police to look the other way, as if it could be expected and was deserved. The risks, such as they are, are more like the risks of being engaged in crime rather than the risks of dangerous but lawful and approved occupations.

Best regards,

Donald W. Zimmerman
Vancouver, BC, Canada
dwzimm@telus.net
http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Donald W. Zimmerman

To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:29 PM

Subject: Re: [evol-psych] News: Why Do Men Buy Sex?

--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Moxon" <stevemoxon3@...>
wrote:

> The notion of large-scale kidnapping of women for enslavement by Arabs is a supreme
piece of xenophobic paranoia. It has a semblence of truth because there is no doubt that
Arab driven slavery in Africa still goes on. But international 'trafficking' of women for
prostitution has been shown to be a myth by researchers, who show that the figures are
simple misrepresentations of voluntary cross-border movement by women seeking work
as prostitutes. [This was notably the conclusion of research for/by the UN, which despite
this still carries the headline finding that 'trafficking' is a big problem! This indicates just
how moribund an organisation is the UN, not that we didn't well know.] You might have
noticed that Arabs generally are remarkably wealthy, and have no trouble getting women
to work as prostitutes simply by paying them.
>
> None of this is to deny that there isn't some 'trafficking', of course. There would have to
be some for the 'white slave trade' fabrication not to be laughed out of town completely.
>
> With the now very small percentage of prostitution that is on-street: the other
supposed manifestation of coercion -- the 'pimp' -- has long been an endangered
species, if he ever wasn't. His supposed presence is another gross misrepresentation. The
>guys hanging around red-light areas are the relatives or friends or boyfriends of the
>girls who have been asked to or who have volunteered (or insisted) to keep an eye on
>them.

As recently as 20 years ago, organized crime played a major role in prostitution in many places, at least in North America if not in Europe. The crime families controlled how and where it was carried out, who got the lion's share of the money, payments to police and politicians to look the other way, which brothels and massage parlors cities were allowed to do business, and so on.

I'll bet there is still a connection. Maybe today more women are breaking out on their own as independents, but it was not always that way. And some of those independents still have to pay off various people. One of the main deterrents to opening a massage parlor was, and may still be, not the disapproval of morality-minded citizens or the police, but rather the deadly force exerted by competitors.

Along the same lines, in addition to women being "forced" into prostitution in the sense of kidnapping, there needs to be another category called being "scammed" into it. Naive women are recruited in Asia with promises of big earnings if they come to North America as "escorts," "models," etc , not sex workers. When they get here, however, they find that the money is not what was promised and they have to work in massage parlors for long hours and for years to pay for room and board as well as to pay off the money loaned for passage over on the ship (room and board at inflated prices and passage money at exorbitant interest.)

Again there is little control of the business by the women themselves, and most of the money goes to criminals. Drug addiction is rampant, and often occurs after working a while as a prostitute, not before. The sum total is not a whole lot different from forced labor or kidnapping.

Donald W. Zimmerman
Vancouver, BC, Canada
dwzimm@telus.net
http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/index.html

Roy,

My impression is that China's low HIV rate is mostly due to the very
low rate of multiple sex partners.

Edgar

On Nov 30, 2008, at 5:17 PM, roy freedle wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings to all,
> On Nov. 13, Robert posted an article (see below) on " 'Elixir of
> youth' Drug Could
> Fight HIV and Ageing"
>
> I want to comment on three crucial paragraphs from this article,
> namely:
>      "Effros and her colleagues had previously inserted part of the
> telomerase gene into so-called killer T-cells - immune cells that
> fight infections including HIV - and found that the cells had
> stronger anti-viral activity than normal. ....
>      In the latest work, Effros took killer T-cells from HIV-
> infected people and exposed them to TAT2. Developed by Geron
> Corporation of Menlo Park, California, TAT2 is a drug extracted
> from the root of a plant called Astragalus that is thought to boost
> telomerase production and is traditionally used in Chinese medicine
> as a boost for the immune system.
>      She found that TAT2 reduced telomere shortening, increased
> cells' ability to divide, and enhanced their antiviral activity."
>
<snip>

--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Wade Allsopp"
<wade.allsopp@...>
wrote:

> You might find a trip to Africa enlightening on this one Donald.  Male
> prostitution
> servicing generally older European women is very common in the traditional
> tourist destinations such as
> The Gambia, Senegal, Kenya, Malawi, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia  etc.
>
> It tends to be dressed up as a romantic relationship with guys in these
> countries spending quite alot of time
> scouring the internet to set up holiday romances.  Payments tend to be
> dressed up as loans that never get repaid (sort of mini TARPs)
> , presents ect rather than cash on the nnail as it were.
>
> The big dream is of course marriage with consequent property and visa
> benefits.

I'll skip the trip to Africa, because your message and what Steve said has
already enlightened me. I believe you. But here again I would have a question
about the frequencies of such things. In those African countries where male
prostitutes service European women, how many male prostitutes service local
homosexual men? Am I way off in thinking the former number may be relatively
small compared to the latter? The gigolos nowadays in North America may be
conspicuous and provide material for jokes and movies, but I'll bet are a drop
in the bucket compared to the young males who do business with older homosexual
men.

Best regards,

Donald W. Zimmerman
Vancouver, BC, Canada
dwzimm@...
http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/index.html

Sussa Björkholm wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Robert Karl Stonjek
> <stonjek@...> wrote:
>
>
>> And who is this 'you' that forgets the wife and switches attention to the
>> tiger?  A think you are missing an elephant in the room - you have
>> introduced a 'we'.  To eliminate recursion, there can be no independent
>> 'we'.
>>
>> The only way to solve the problem is to toss the viewer into the soup and
>> blend him/her in.  Now you have a soup complete with viewer.  In a practical
>> sense, the view includes the viewer, each new ingredient added to the soup
>> causes a ripple through the entire brew.
>>
>
> You are so right! And I really enjoyed the essay. It is always a
> pleasure to read he results of a clear brain at work.
>
> I (here we go again..) believe that the following might apply: In a
> brain cellular activity can be caused via two different routes.
>
> 1) Energies external to the central nervous system smash into specific
> structures whose activity is electrochemical. These are of course are
> sensory receptors. As the information becomes electrochemical, it is
> understood by our nervous system and can be conveyed from neuron to
> neuron.
>
> 2) There are circuits at least in the brain stem that have intrinsic
> rhythms of activation. This means, that they do not need to be aroused
> by input, but can in turn activate other neurons.
>
> Some combination of neurons active at one time is consciousness (the
> we, the homunculus).

If we are aware (e.g. conscious, cognizant) of something, say, x. Then we are
"conscious of x" e.g. C(x).

If we are conscious of being conscious (the very definition of recursion) then
this is minimally C(C(x)).

That means we are conscious of being conscious of x. That is typically called
"awareness".

If we mean "being conscious in general of having conscious experiences" then we
have to make a small modification. Let P be the product symbol (e.g. large Pi).
Then writing x(i) for x-subscript-i, consciousness is C(C(Px(i)); that is we are
conscious in general of being conscious of many things.

So far there is no homunculus here. It is possible that this spot (module) is
not needed because what is to be accomplished (above) can be distributed over
the brain. Then apparently, if we must have a homunculus, the brain is the
homunculus.


> The amount of neurons that are needed for a
> minimum of consciousness is not known, neither is their location. Most
> probably they are widely distributed or need a specific rhythmicity in
> input to cause consciousness. Or both.
>
> This conscious network/networks contains all qualia of all senses, all
> emotions, all thoughts, all memories remembered, everything the brain
> is at any one moment aware of.
>
> So the example of a brain reading and suddenly "wanting to become
> aware of the fact that it is reading" is here a bottom-up process.
> Something downstream activates both this urge and the resulting
> "metaconsciousness".
>
>

I purposely left out how this attention-switching (e.g. wife to tiger) takes
place. it could be competition amongst various modules that do cognition. And
there could be another module that weighs in all the inputs coming in and
decides which should have priority. Indeed, we are again making analogies to
CPUs. All CPUs (processors) have interrupt lines (IRQ=interrupt request lines)
thru which devices can interrupt the normal processing by the CPU, and ask for
service.

Different modules then would be fighting for access to this "awareness" module.

> In this "model", the conscious network doesn't have any efferents,
> i.e. it cannot cause any motor output to occur. Instead, it is
> informed of coming motor activity and it feels like it is causing this
> activity.
>
> Sunshine!
> Sussa
>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
Regards,

H.M. Hubey

Do movies mirror reality or do people assume reality can be found in movies?


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381690/




Steve Moxon wrote:
> Do I have to yet again post why it is that it is a myth that
> prostitutes are at risk, other than that which is largely self-imposed
> for the small minority who work on the street?
> [Is Donald not reading the posts in this thread?]
>
> There certainly are male prostitutes who service women clients (and
> exclusively so). The clients are middle-aged women who through age
> have lost their sexual power, and who are looking not for sex per se,
> but an illusion of romance of which sex is a part. This is common in
> places like The Gambia and Turkey (certain holiday destinations of
> women from Europe and elsewhere in the West, where local wages are low).
>
> Steve Moxon (Author of /The Woman Racket: The new science explaining
> how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society/. Extracts/info
> at www.imprint-academic.com/moxon)
>
>

Expressing Emotions In E-mail So As Not To Be Misinterpreted

ScienceDaily (Nov. 28, 2008) — In a new article in the current issue of American Journal of Sociology authors Daniel A. Menchik and Xiaoli Tian (both of the University of Chicago) study how we use emoticons, subject lines, and signatures to define how we want to be interpreted in email. The authors find that "a shift to email interaction requires a new set of interactional skills to be developed."

Unlike face-to-face conversations, email interactions leave out tone of voice, body-language and context, which can lead to misunderstandings. While these authors agree that there are difficulties, they believe that no way of communicating is actually superior to another.

Menchik and Tian argue that face-to-face and internet-based contexts each require a set of distinct interaction strategies. "People can cultivate ways of communicating in online contexts that are equally as effective as those used offline," they write. "The degree to which Â… individuals develop unique conventions in the medium will determine their ability to communicate effectively."

The research focuses on "the case of a well-known scientific organization that decided to replace occasional meetings of a research panel with ongoing email interaction." The panel encountered numerous problems conversing via email. But the researchers identified several ways people were able to overcome these barriers.

"People innovate in response to the challenges of a new context for the communication of essential elements of language," the authors write.

Capital letters, use of quotations, emoticons, exclamation points, punctuation, bullet points, style and even color help the sender communicate the meaning of a word or message. For example, "I feel betrayed" reads differently from "I FEEL SO BETRAYED!! ;)" where the capital letters and winking smiley face indicate sarcasm.

Participants also maintained their conversational flow by cutting and pasting from previous emails and using subject lines that referenced previous discussions. In email listservs these devices help address comments to a certain individual and help the discussion to stay on topic.

Signatures, disclaimers and other information about the person's state of mind were also commonly used when writing an email. The authors found that subjects felt more comfortable communicating once they knew a little about each other, like the information included in a signature. They also found that indicating the frame of mind as a disclaimer, (i.e. "I wrote this at 5AM" or "on a blackberry while on vacation") helped prevent the email from being misinterpreted.

Developers have picked up on these cues with the advent of linguistic monitors such as Eudora's MoodWatch feature. This program tries to indicate to the sender that their email might be considered inflammatory, and to the receiver that they are about to receive such an email.

---

Adapted from materials provided by University of Chicago Press Journals, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

 

University of Chicago Press Journals (2008, November 28). Expressing Emotions In E-mail So As Not To Be Misinterpreted. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081125161537.htm

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

I'm not sure what I honestly expected, but I know it wasn't this. In the
history of American politics we've had quite a few "conservative"
administrations that didn't do much of anything save look after the
interests of the powerful. We've had corrupt administrations, and
reactionary administrations. We've seen the appointment of so-called
centrists, alongside people so far to the right (Al Haig, James Watt, Ellen
Sauerbrey, John Bolton, among many others) that they make Attila the Hun
look liberal. But we've seldom seen anyone who even mildly represents
working-class America.

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Hubey" <HubeyH@...
> <mailto:HubeyH@...>>
> To: <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Essay: Without Infinite Regress
>
> >
> > Sussa Björkholm wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Robert Karl Stonjek
> > > <stonjek@... <mailto:stonjek@...>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> And who is this 'you' that forgets the wife and switches
> attention to the
> > >> tiger?  A think you are missing an elephant in the room - you have
> > >> introduced a 'we'.  To eliminate recursion, there can be no
> independent
> > >> 'we'.
> > >>
> > >> The only way to solve the problem is to toss the viewer into the
> soup and
> > >> blend him/her in.  Now you have a soup complete with viewer.  In
> a practical
> > >> sense, the view includes the viewer, each new ingredient added to
> the soup
> > >> causes a ripple through the entire brew.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You are so right! And I really enjoyed the essay. It is always a
> > > pleasure to read he results of a clear brain at work.
> > >
> > > I (here we go again..) believe that the following might apply: In a
> > > brain cellular activity can be caused via two different routes.
> > >
> > > 1) Energies external to the central nervous system smash into specific
> > > structures whose activity is electrochemical. These are of course are
> > > sensory receptors. As the information becomes electrochemical, it is
> > > understood by our nervous system and can be conveyed from neuron to
> > > neuron.
> > >
> > > 2) There are circuits at least in the brain stem that have intrinsic
> > > rhythms of activation. This means, that they do not need to be aroused
> > > by input, but can in turn activate other neurons.
> > >
> > > Some combination of neurons active at one time is consciousness (the
> > > we, the homunculus).
> >
> > If we are aware (e.g. conscious, cognizant) of something, say, x.
> Then we are "conscious of x" e.g. C(x).
> >
> > If we are conscious of being conscious (the very definition of
> recursion) then this is minimally C(C(x)).
> >
> > That means we are conscious of being conscious of x. That is
> typically called "awareness".
> >
> > If we mean "being conscious in general of having conscious
> experiences" then we have to make a small modification. Let P be the
> product symbol (e.g. large Pi). Then writing x(i) for x-subscript-i,
> consciousness is C(C(Px(i)); that is we are conscious in general of
> being conscious of many things.
> >
> > So far there is no homunculus here. It is possible that this spot
> (module) is not needed because what is to be accomplished (above) can
> be distributed over the brain. Then apparently, if we must have a
> homunculus, the brain is the homunculus.
> >
> >
> <Snip>
>
> *RKS:*
> In the above explanation, you use the term 'we' eight times,
> apparently without noticing.  The 'we' is the homunculus you need to
> account for.

We refers to the readers who are also the thinkers behind what "we"
think is going on. That "we" refers not to the humonculus
but to something else. That "we" is what is being explained in how [I
think] things happen.

Of course, you can take the "module" where things happen and decide to
call it the humonculus. I do not know what
the humonculus is. I think it comes from or is related to the story
"exorcising the ghost in the machine" that comes from
the 19th century.

Back when Germany built its first railroad, a train stopped in some
village. The villagers who had never before seen a
train asked what made the train go. The engineer explained about the
fire, the piston, the pressure in the piston etc. He
talked about energy, power and all that. The villagers would have none
of it. They thought the locomotive (engine) had a horse in it.

The engineer, exasparated, then asked "OK, what then makes the horse
go?" The villagers went together and huddled and
came back; "We figured it out. The horse, in each of its hooves has
smaller horses"

I do not need a humonculus. The whole brain is apparently the
humonculus, for those who must have a humonculus.

I do not get what you are getting at.

<Snip>

--
Regards,

H.M. Hubey