https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6589&context=etd
Begin Reading On Page 11.
According to theories of human mating in which the reproductive religiosity
model is based, long-term mating strategy typically involves forgoing extra
mating opportunities as a tradeoff to committing to one mate and resulting
offspring (Buss, 2007; Simpson & Gangestad, 2000). Investment in both of these
is risky in populations with high amounts of non-mated or promiscuous
individuals due to increased chances of losing a mate to a non-mated individual
and in turn undermining investments of time, energy, and resources (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993; Buss, 2002; Weeden et al., 2016). Religious participation bolsters
against this by imposing social costs such as condemnation, ostracization, and
reputational damage to those with a conflicting (i.e., short-term) mating strategy
(Eggebeen & Dew, 2009; Gintis, Smith, & Bowles, 2001; Kurzban et al., 2010;
McCullough et al., 2012; Petersen, 2017; Weeden & Kurzban, 2013; Weeden et
al., 2016). Specifically, the act of religious attendance places one within a
community of people that is publicly hostile to individuals who are not pursuing a
long-term mating strategy (DeScioli & Kurzban, 2013; Kirkpatrick, 2005;
Kirkpatrick, 2006; Kurzban, 2010; Robinson & Kurzban, 2007; Weeden &
Kurzban 2017; Van Slyke & Wasemiller, 2017).
Weeden was fascinated with the psychology of religion and politics, and he had a very intriguing idea he wanted to investigate. He believed that much of the fighting between America's Religious Right and Liberal Left was based not in a disagreement about high-minded philosophical ideals but in something much simpler and far less noble: The two camps are playing out fundamentally different mating strategies. And they do not like each other because the people playing one mating strategy are actively getting in the way of those playing the other mating strategy. Because I had done research on mating strategies and Adam had done research on the psychology of religion, Jason recruited us to work with him to test this idea.
Weeden pointed out that the United States is often viewed as a highly religious nation, at least in comparison to other Western countries. But Jason loved to play with giant survey databases, and he pointed out that the U.S. population is in fact remarkably divided in its religiosity. According to data he gathered from the 2006 wave of the U.S. General Social Survey, 40 percent attend services several times a month, but 42 percent of American adults hardly ever attend religious services. What are the causes and consequences of the rift between the hyperreligious and the irreligious? Jason proposed what we later came to call the reproductive religiosity model. On this view, a primary function religious groups in the contemporary United States is to bolster a monogamous reproductive strategy, characterized by low promiscuity, exclusive heterosexuality, and a high value on marriage and fertility. Religious groups bolster this reproductive strategy in two ways: On the negative side, they enforce a set of strict moral norms (treating sexual promiscuity as sinful); on the positive side, they provide various forms of support for families that live according to those rules.
Treating premarital sex as sinful provides an incentive to marry early. And treating abortion and birth control as sinful encourages people to have children. According to Weeden, this helps explain why the rank-and-file members of the Religious Right tend to be less well educated than their counterparts on the Liberal Left. Taking care of a family makes it difficult to stay in school and pursue an advanced degree in philosophy or neuroscience. This is one of the trade-offs involved in adopting the monogamous, long-term, high-fertility strategy. From a purely reproductive perspective, this strategy also has costs as well as benefits. For monogamous family-oriented men, the high level of investment in their wives and children means forgoing other mating opportunities. Because a man can never be completely sure that he is the father of his wife's children, the strict religious rules against promiscuity help him too, by reducing the risks of paternal uncertainty. Monogamous, family-oriented women strike a complimentary bargain: The strictly enforced norms help keep their husbands from running around, but they also reduce the woman's opportunities to run around with a charming unrestricted guy who could provide sexier genes for her children. (Researchers including Steve Gangestad, Randy Thornhill, and Martie Haselton have found that when women in relationships are ovulating, they become more attracted to guys who look like Vince Vaughn and George Clooney, especially when the women are married to average-looking guys.)
By checking up on one another, the members of a sexually conservative religious community reduce the potential costs of early marriage and high familial investment. Religious communities don't just frown on promiscuity; they condemn it, and they impose costs on those who break the rules, impugning their reputations and ostracizing them. But besides punishing sexual promiscuity, religious groups reward family orientation in various ways - they set up preschools, they join together to share babysitting chores, and they provide assistance to their members when they lose their jobs or get sick.
The prototypical member of the Liberal Left, on the other hand, plays a very different life strategy. He or she may wait until at least the end of college before marrying and beginning to have children and then may delay even a few years longer to go to graduate school, law school, or medical school. Because the human ability to resist sexual urges has a hard time outlasting all the postponement, these folks do not like the Religious Right's attempts to impose rules against premarital sex, nor do they like anything that limits their access to all the tools of family planning. Liberal Lefties typically do not give a hoot what you do in the privacy of your bedroom or whom you do it with. These folks prose a problem for the Religious Righties, though, because a large number of sexually loose young people playing the field threatens to disrupt the strict system that religious folks have set up to enforce and reinforce family bonds.
To check the validity of his reproductive religiosity model, Weeden analyzed a mountain of data - from 21,131 people in the U.S. General Social Survey. Cohen and I also joined him to look at data from another more focused survey, in this case 902 undergraduate students at American universities who were asked questions about their family plans, their sexual attitudes, their religious attendance, and their moral feelings about stealing, lying, and so on.
We found that people's inclination to attend religious services could be predicted by some of the usual variables - being a woman, being older, being a nondrinker, and being low in sensation-seeking and high in conscientiousness, for example. We also found that attending church was linked to people's opinions about nonsexual transgressions like lying to parents, shoplifting, cursing, and using illegal drugs. But what was more interesting was this: The strongest predictors of attending church were those related to sexual and family values (opposition to infidelity, to premarital sex, to abortion, and so on). And when Weeden statistically controlled for the sexual and family value items, the links between religious attendance and the other variables disappeared.
Back to my own falling away from the Catholic Church. It happened at a time when I had started attending college and was beginning to realize that I would be in school for a lot longer if I wanted to become a research scientist. Although I was not planning on getting married soon, I was not doing a very good job of avoiding the temptations of premarital sex. So my early theory that I was forced to choose between sex and God might apply to many college-educated people, and not just Roman Catholics. Weeden also has some evidence that many university students switch away from traditional religious beliefs during college, when the temptations of uncommitted premarital sex combine with obstacles to getting married. Later on, when the college-educated settle down to family life, many of them switch back to traditional religious beliefs. Again, people's love lives may drive their religiosity at least as much as their religiosity drives their love lives.
We began to wonder whether the link between religiosity and reproduction was malleable enough to be moved around with a laboratory manipulation. Could we make people more or less religious just by having them think about attractive mates, for example? Weeded had his doubts, and they were well-founded; although it made sense that someone could undergo a gradual change in his or her life strategy if there was a big change in his or her mating opportunities, that shift should not happen in a few minutes.
On the other hand, people can only change if they have mental mechanisms that calibrate themselves to the current environment. As I describe in chapter 2, for example, we have done laboratory experiments showing that people's commitment to their long-term partners can be shifted merely by informing them that there are a lot of available and desirable members of the opposite sex around. And we have also found that people's opinions of their own mate value could be moved around in a short experiment by telling them that there are a lot of available and desirable members of their own sex on campus. These findings told us that events in the short-term can kick in some of the same shifts in mating strategy as do long-term changes in the environment. If religiosity is to some extent a mating strategy, then it might well respond similarly to information about the local mating pool.
To investigate this possibility, we began a series of experiments with Jessica Li, who was a bright and eager new graduate student working with Adam Cohen and me. In these experiments, we brought students into the lab and told them the study was about evaluating dating profiles. If you were a participant, you would have been told:
Many students at ASU come from far-away places, like Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago. They are often interested in meeting other people, but they often feel uncomfortable going to bars and meeting total strangers. So the ASU student government is trying to set up a computer-based system to allow students to meet one another in a more comfortable way.
The psychology department is helping to set up the system because psychologists know about survey design and social behavior. The key thing we are interested in here is whether this is the right information and whether it is presented well. The information is from people who have signed up to meet other people at ASU.
After reading that, you would have looked over six dating profiles that were presumably from other ASU students. The people in the photos were actually highly attractive models. The photos were accompanied by self-descriptions in which the attractive people talked about their positive characteristics and expressed their eagerness to date. Half of the time, subjects saw attractive and available people of their own sex; the other half of the time, they looke over six attractive and available people of the opposite sex.
When you were done rating all of the profiles, you would have been told we needed some information about you. At this point, you would have answered some questions about your attitudes on several topics. Buried in the list were questions about the extent to which you believed in God and about whether you thought people would be better off if religion played a bigger role in their lives.
Before we ran our study, we were not really sure what to expect. I thought that perhaps seeing beautiful available women might have might have made men less inclined to be religious. As it turned out, however, seeing attractive people of the opposite sex had no effect on either men or women. Instead, we found that looking at attractive people of one's own sex led both men and women to express more belief in God.
Why? We think that the results fit with Weeden's ideas about dueling religious strategies. When you become aware that there are a lot of highly attractive mating competitors out there, it reduces the perceived benefits of playing a fast and loose mating strategy (a strategy that is popular among many undergraduates at schools like ASU, where mating opportunities sometimes seem unlimited). For women, a lot of attractive competitors means less attention from the attractive men who might provide good genes, and fewer fellows vying to support your offspring. For men, on the other hand, an abundance of especially handsome and available guys means that if you are playing the field, you may be playing with yourself for most of the game. Under circumstances of limited opportunities, any normal person - who does not look like a fashion model - could benefit from the religion-based supports for monogamy.
Psychologists have traditionally focused on the ways in which early religious indoctrination might lead people to later shun sexuality. William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, the famous sex therapists, listed religious training as one of the big causes of sexual inhibitions. It is certainly true that many religions teach young people that premarital and extramarital sex are evils to be avoided. But the results of our studies suggest that the causal arrow may go in the opposite direction as well. Not only can religion shape people's sexuality, but people's sexual strategies can also shape their religiosity.
Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life. Kenrick, p. 150-157.
Jordan Moon has contributed to another thought-provoking body of literature, on the prejudice against atheists. People really don’t trust atheists. It’s not just that religious people trust people who share their beliefs; they trust people of other religions more than they trust atheists. Even atheists themselves trust religious people more than they do other atheists (Gervais, 2013).
Moon and his colleagues have shown, consistently, that people trust religious people more than non-religious people. However, they did a clever study in which they gave judges information not only about someone’s religious beliefs, but also about their mating strategy. The results suggest that, if you know an atheist also happens to be a committed monogamist, you would trust that person more than you’d trust a religious person who is non-monogamous. Those findings suggest that the distrust of atheists is driven in large part by presumptions about their mating strategies (Moon, Krems, & Cohen, 2018).
That religion is the sole product permitted to target children straight out of the womb is its fourth uniquely defining attribute. In many Western countries, it is illegal for companies to advertise directly to children below a certain age. Even though the legal age varies across cultural settings, it is clear that most people agree that there is something particularly pernicious in seeking to manipulate or persuade children via advertising. The psychological argument is that young children do not have the cognitive ability to erect defenses against such persuasive intent, so the regulatory and legal system steps in to protect them. Think about it for a minute. Companies cannot peddle cereals, toys, and chewing gum to children in certain Western countries, but it's perfectly legal, ethical, and moral for parents to religiously indoctrinate their children immediately upon birth. Having children develop a preference for McDonald's (via advertising) is "evil," but teaching them Bronze Age superstitions that are antithetical to every rational and scientific tenet is not. I concur with Dawkins when he proposed that targeting religious messages to children is tantamount to child abuse.
These four points are sufficient to anoint religion as the most "perfect" product ever devised (from a marketer's perspective). However, religion has a lot more going for it in terms of its ability to parasitize human minds. As I write these words, Toyota is facing an unprecedented crisis. Several of its recent models have been deemed unsafe to drive, and as a result the company has had to recall hundreds of thousands of its cars. Short of religion, all products, even those from reputable and venerable firms, are potentially fallible. Religion maintains its hold on people irrespective of the massive evidence that suggests that it is the most "defective" of all invented products. Why did God allow a four-year-old child to die of leukemia? Because He is calling those He loves most to be with Him in heaven. Why did the leukemia go into remission in the case of a different four-year-old child? Because God protects the pure and the innocent. Why did God allow the Holocaust to happen? He was angry with His chosen people, so He turned away from them. Why was Hitler unsuccessful in implementing the Final Solution? Because God loves His chosen people. The tautologies are endless. Unlike other products that can be recalled from the market if they fail, the religion hawkers have a foolproof product.
The earthquake that struck in Haiti in 2010 was devastating, with well over one hundred thousand deaths and countless people injured and left homeless. One might think that such a calamity might shake the Haitians' faith in an all-loving, benevolent, and protector God. It turns out that their faith in God increased subsequent to the disaster. I vividly remember the images of a woman who was rescued from the rubble after being buried alive for several days. As she was being freed, she broke out into a rapturous religious hymn, as Jesus had apparently intervened to save her. Too bad He was too busy to save the other hundreds of thousands of people who perished. Human narcissism is truly limitless.
In his 2002 bestselling book Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer proposes that humans are pattern seekers. In other words, we have an innate need, perhaps as a by-product of our evolved intelligence, to identify patterns as a means of ascribing meaning to the world. In many instances, the patterns are illusory but nonetheless comforting in that the world is more comprehensible when it appears less random. A good friend of mine recently shared with me an anecdote, which is quite telling of the innate need to seek meaning through patterns. He had recently dreamed of an old friend whom he had not seen in many years. A day or two later, he ran into him in a location that struck him as highly unlikely for such a serendipitous encounter. He seemed to suggest that some cosmic forces were at play, for how else cold such a reality come about? He failed to calculate the number of times that he had dreamed of someone he knew and not run into shortly thereafter.
Why Coincidences Are Meaningless - Richard Dawkins
Existential angst about our mortality coupled with our desire to seek cosmological meaning through the identification of grand patterns ensures that religion will always remain part of the human condition. Intelligence and education are the only effective inoculations against religious indoctrination. Over the past eight decades, research has repeatedly uncovered a negative correlation between individuals' intelligence and their religiosity. This negative relationship holds at the level of nations as well; that is, there exists a negative correlation between the religiosity of nations and their national intelligence scores. Academics constitute perhaps the least religious occupational group, which again captures the intelligence-religiosity negative correlation (by virtue of the high IQ scores of academics). Finally, the more eminent a group of scientists, the less likely they are to be religious. Even within academia, one can differentiate between levels of religiosity as a function of scientific renown. All told, God will continue to play an important role in human affairs, not because He truly exists but rather because He will continue to exist in the minds of countless individuals.
The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, And Gift Giving Reveal about Human Nature. Saad, p. 205-211
"THERE WILL BE UPS AND DOWNS, SMILES AND FROWNS" - NIGGA DOGGY DOGG
Why do people believe in supernatural powers and religious explanations for natural phenomena? The human brain is biologically wired to believe in these things. People look for common patterns in certain events and try to establish causes and connections between them. People think that these patterns aren’t random or inanimate, but that everything happens for a reason. They believe that there’s some agency behind them, a spirit, a force; somebody is pulling the strings making things happen. From there it’s a small step to calling it something, a god, a spirit, a ghost, an alien, an angel, or a demon. And that was the world we’ve always lived in until science debunked those ideas. It’s not that people are ignorant or uneducated. It’s just easier to follow this path. Modern conspiracy theories are a form of that same logic.
The ability to evaluate meaningful connections among different phenomena in our environment may be so important that it is worth seeing a few mirages. If a starving caveman sees an indistinct greenish blur on a distant rock, it is more costly to dismiss it as uninteresting when it is in reality a plump, tasty lizard than it is to race over and pounce on what turns out to be a few stray leaves. And so, that theory goes, we might have evolved to avoid the former mistake at the cost of sometimes making the latter.
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-BrX-lG95qhZ3tncM/The%20Drunkard's%20Walk%20[How%20Randomness%20Rules%20Our%20Life]_djvu.txt
READ CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 2. THEN SCROLL BENEATH THE WORDS "GREEK BOY" IN CHAPTER 2 AND BEGIN READING ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY BIAS. IT'LL HELP EXPLAIN WHY PEOPLE THINK SOME OF THE THOUGHTS BELOW (i.e. THEIR THOUGHT THAT "EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON").
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/jul/12/saturdayreviewsfeatres.guardianreview4
READ!
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-jan-11-la-oe-shermer-arizona-shooting-20110111-story.html
The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that about 1% of the population suffers from schizophrenia, and that more than 25% of us have some kind of diagnosable mental disorder. This means that about 3 million people with psychosis are walking among us, as well as tens of millions more whose mental health is askew in some way. And many of those who need treatment aren't receiving it. Given these statistics, events such as the shooting in Tucson are bound to happen, no matter how nicely politicians talk to one another on the campaign trail or in Congress, no matter how extreme tea party slogans are about killing government programs, and no matter how stiff or loose gun control laws are in this or that state. By chance — and nothing more — there will always be people who do the unthinkable.
https://www.krdo.com/news/top-stories/aurora-theater-shooter-james-holmes-psychiatric-evaluation-videos-released/990957257
Happy Thanks Giving.
Yours Truly,
Jesus Christ The Son Of God
Steeze Urkel @D0llywood ·
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-storyteller-in-your-head
I jumped out of the way of many a rattlesnake, but that is not all. I also jumped out of the way of grass that rustled in the wind. I jumped, that is, before I was consciously aware that it was the wind that rustled the grass, rather than a rattler. If I had had only my conscious processes to depend on, I probably would have jumped less but been bitten on more than one occasion.
...
If you were to have asked me why I had jumped, I would have replied that I thought I’d seen a snake. The reality, however, is that I jumped way before I was conscious of the snake. My explanation is from post hoc information I have in my conscious system. When I answered that question, I was, in a sense, confabulating—giving a fictitious account of a past event, believing it to be true.
I confabulated because our human brains are driven to infer causality. They are driven to make sense out of scattered facts. The facts that my conscious brain had to work with were that I saw a snake, and I jumped. It did not register that I jumped before I was consciously aware of it.
In truth, when we set out to explain our actions, they are all post hoc explanations using post hoc observations with no access to nonconscious processing. Not only that, our left brain fudges things a bit to fit into a makes-sense story. Explanations are all based on what makes it into our consciousness, but actions and the feelings happen before we are consciously aware of them—and most of them are the results of nonconscious processes, which will never make it into the explanations. The reality is, listening to people’s explanations of their actions is interesting—and in the case of politicians, entertaining—but often a waste of time.
https://twitter.com/misssnaomi/status/1259634019676745730
"Well, I Endured An Excruciatingly Painful 26 Hour Labor During My 1st Pregnancy And Gave Birth To A Beautiful Baby Girl Then My Baby Daddy Left ME Several Months Later, But G0D Said That's Not Enough. So HE Told Me, 'I've Got Something Even Better For You. 3 Years From Now You'll Have A Second Pregnancy, But I'm Gonna Send Your 2nd Baby Daddy To Prison For Attempting To Murder You And Your Daughter 8 Months Into Your Pregnancy Leaving You To Deal With The Remainder Of The Pregnancy And Delivery By Yourself. But That's Not All. During The Sentencing Of Your Baby Daddy (He'll Be Looking At 25 To Life Since It'll Be His 3rd Strike) You'll Have A Sudden, Complicated Birth Because His Other Baby Mama Will Find Out About You Leading Her To Beat The Shit Out Of You (In The Courtroom The Child Will Come Out Ass 1st With The Umbilical Chord Wrapped Around Its Neck Depriving It Of Oxygen Due To The Ass Beating You Incur) Resulting In You Giving Birth To A Cognitively Impaired Son. And That's Exactly What He Did And Exactly What I Wanted And Why I Love Him. Thank You Jesus!"
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Purpose-Godless-World-Universe/dp/163388385X
*Deshaun God And Fate Wanted You To Win A College National Championship And Then Donate Your First NFL Check To Charity**, Just Like God And Fate Wanted Joshua To Attend Portland State! God And Fate Are Willing Everything Into Existence! All You Niggas Have To Do Is Sit In The Passenger Seat Of Life And Go Along For The Ride! You Niggas Ain't Drivin' The Car Of Life. God And Fate Are. You Niggas Have No Control Over The Direction Of The Car (No Control Over Your Life), So Just Sit Back And Enjoy The Ride!
ALL GAS, NO BRAKES, MY NIGGAZ!
**Deshaun Scroll To Page 321 And Read Why You Decided To Give Your Check To Charity!
https://ontherapyaspse.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/geoffrey-miller-the-mating-mind.pdf
NOW, RELATE THIS PASSAGE TO WHAT I'VE WRITTEN ABOVE AND BELOW ABOUT THE EXCUSES YOU COME UP WITH TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL BETTER (THE EXCUSES YOU UNCONSCIOUSLY CREATE AFTER SOMETHING HARMFUL OR BENEFICIAL HAS OCCURRED TO YOU THAT GIVE YOU OPTIMISM, HOPE, AND MEANING EVEN THOUGH LIFE IS MEANINGLESS AND THAT HOPE AND OPTIMISM AREN'T MERITED (REALISTIC)!)!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND? PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOW IQ AND ARE UNEDUCATED (KNOW NOTHING ABOUT NEUROSCIENCE)!
Part 5 - Phantoms In The Brain (Episode 1)
http://www.nature.com/news/the-split-brain-a-tale-of-two-halves-1.10213
https://neuwritesd.org/2015/08/27/two-brains-in-one-head-the-story-of-the-split-brain-phenomenon/
DON'T LET YOUR LEFT HAND KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHT HAND IS DOING, PIMP!
"While we all think that we first plan our actions and that they are then willfully carried out, in some cases a part of our frontal lobe may actually "decide" first, unconsciously, that we will perform an act, and after we carry out the act we fool ourselves into thinking we planned it. In other words, we are fooling ourselves into thinking we planned it." - JAMES FALLON (PSYCHOPATH)
My friend's decisional error is precisely the mechanism by which individuals believe that their prayers are answered. For argument's sake, let's assume that in any given year, a woman prays for one thousand different outcomes, one of which comes to fruition. Hallelujah! Apparently, God has answered her prayers even though He apparently ignored the other 999. This is similar to thinking that "it always rains when I forget to take my umbrella with me." Let us suppose that this event has happened on five occasions. The brain codes each of these instances as an instantiation of that event. However, there are three other relevant events that are ignored: (1) the times it rained and I had an umbrella; (2) the times it did not rain and I had an umbrella; (3) the times it did not rain and I did not have an umbrella. Once all four possible events are accounted for, the frequency of the original event is placed in its proper perspective.
Mikey Howell
- It's a reason why I'm here...Y'all might not know it but God do!!!Jay, The Proper Pronoun To Use In Your 1st Sentence Is "There". So You Should Have Started Your Sentence "There's A Reason..." OK, Jay! Proper Grammar, My Nigga! Anyway, What's The Reason, My Nigga?! What Did The Good Lord Tell You? What's He Got Planned For You, My Nigga?!
THERE IS NO REASON! THINGS JUST HAPPEN RANDOMLY! YOUR GENES INTERACT WITH YOUR ENVIRONMENT AND HAPPENSTANCE (DUMB LUCK) TO PRODUCE THE EVENTS IN YOUR LIFE AND THE OUTCOME OF YOUR LIFE! THEN YOU ATTRIBUTE A REASON TO THOSE EVENTS AND YOUR LIFE (WHATEVER YOU DO IN LIFE AND WHATEVER HAPPENS TO YOU IN LIFE; YOU JUST CUM UP WITH A REASON FOR BOTH AFTER THE FACT)!
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-BrX-lG95qhZ3tncM/The%20Drunkard's%20Walk%20[How%20Randomness%20Rules%20Our%20Life]_djvu.txt
READ CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 2. THEN SCROLL BENEATH THE WORDS "GREEK BOY" IN CHAPTER 2 AND BEGIN READING ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY BIAS.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/jul/12/saturdayreviewsfeatres.guardianreview4
READ!
TRUST THE PROCESS, HAM0! WHATEVER THAT MEANS! (MAYBE GOD'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROCESS! SO JUST WAIT UNTIL HE FINISHES PROCESSING YOU!)If Heavenly Father wants it, he'll make it happen
Gamepoint Basketball Retweeted
God is real and he using me for a bigger purpose....
OH, I SURE AM, NICK!
There is a (sorta) rational case for gambling, which is that hope, however forlornly against the odds, is pleasurable in its own right.It Feels G00D Rich!David Eagleman Retweeted“Hope is a form of creative speculation: we imagine the world as we wish it to be rather than as it is.” - Anthony Brandt & David Eagleman, The Runaway Species #GargiLikesToReadGreg Tsuno's Right Leg Behind ME! Steve Ashley's Right Hand Beside ME! Kevin's (Can't Remember His Last Name, But He Was A Pretty 6'4 Chinese Guy) Forearm And Hand Next To My Head. -
Imagine If I Was NEVER Forced To Transfer From Wilson? Jeff And Tina Would Have NEVER Met, Married, And Mated! Why? because Tina Would Have Had No Opportunity To Meet Jeff (She Probably Didn't Know Who Jeff Was Prior To ME Transferring To Los Altos). So, What Does This Demonstrate? This Demonstrates How Unpredictable Life Is And How Random Occurrences Can Result In Fortuitous Outcomes For One Party And Disasters For Another (My Playing Basketball At Los Altos Was A Disaster Because I Wasn't Given The Opportunity To Show What I Was Really Capable Of, While It Was A Blessing For Tina Because She Got To Meet Her Future Husband!). (You Know Where I Should Have Transferred After Being Forced Out Of Wilson? Either Bishop Amat Where I Was Going To Attend After 8th Grade And Where Coach Alex Acosta Knew Of Gery And ME Or La Serna Where Mike Lowe, Former H.H. Wilson Coach, Was Coaching (Mike Loved David, So He Would Have Loved ME As Well)!
- Uh Lie!
Gerolamo Cardano was no rebel breaking forth from the intellectual milieu of sixteenth-century
Europe. To Cardano a dog's howl portended the death of a loved one, and a few ravens croaking on
the roof meant a grave illness was on its way. He believed as much as anyone else in fate, in luck,
and in seeing your future in the alignment of planets and stars. Still, had he played poker, he wouldn't
have been found drawing to an inside straight. For Cardano, gambling was second nature. His feeling
for it was seated in his gut, not in his head, and so his understanding of the mathematical relationships
among a game's possible random outcomes transcended his belief that owing to fate, any such insight
is futile. Cardano 's work also transcended the primitive state of mathematics in his day, for algebra
and even arithmetic were yet in their stone age in the early sixteenth century, preceding even the
invention of the equal sign.
https://twitter.com/Iriepirate21/status/1018929517992165376
NICK, THERE'S NO POINT IN ARGUING WITH THESE UNINTELLIGENT (LOW IQ), UNEDUCATED PEOPLE! IT'S A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION WHEN YOU TRY TO ENLIGHTEN AND EDUCATE THEM (THEY'LL CALL YOU A HATER AND DISREGARD/DENY THE TRUTH YOU TELL THEM!). THEY NEED A SENSE OF CONTROL IN THE WORLD, A SENSE OF UNDERSTANDING, AND A PSYCHOLOGICALLY APPEALING REASON FOR WHY BOTH GOOD AND BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO THEY AND THEIR FAMILY! AND THE HUMAN MIND IS INNATELY DESIGNED TO FIND THIS CONTROL, UNDERSTANDING, AND REASON THROUGH PATTERNICITY (FINDING PATTERNS IN EVENTS OR EVERYDAY LIFE) AND AGENTICITY (ATTRIBUTING HUMAN INTENTION OR SUPERNATURAL INTENTION TO THOSE PATTERNS). SMOKE THIS SHERM STICC THEN READ SOME MICHAEL SHERMER IN THE LINKS BELOW!
https://michaelshermer.com/2008/12/patternicity/
https://michaelshermer.com/2009/06/agenticity/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/
Type I And Type II Errors
http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/06/14/michael-shermer-talks-patternicity-and-agenticity/
Shermer argues that the ability for animals to recognize patterns in the environment is crucial for navigating and surviving in a dangerous world. He describes human brains as “evolved pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meaning out of the patterns we think we see in nature” (p. 59). Patternicity is therefore defined as the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise. Much like Gilbert (2002), Shermer believes that for the sake of survival human's default position is to assume that all patterns are real. Thus, people often “believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe non-weird things” (p.62). Humans' weird beliefs include our proclivity to trust anecdotal evidence over statistical evidence – a problem that is often harmless but can result in dire effects, as in the case of thousands of parents who denied their children proper vaccination in the face of celebrity testimonies against its “dangers” – as well as the very common superstitious behaviors often practiced by sports fans and athletes (e.g., if I don't wear my lucky socks on game day my team is going to lose).
Shermer also argues that people are born with the hardwired tendency to spot particular patterns that elicit functional emotional responses. For instance, thoughts of sexual relations with close others, especially those we have grown up with, elicit feelings of disgust – a case of patternicity that natural selection has endowed us to help prevent the genetic maladies that can result from incest. Although not discussed by Shermer, such instances of patternicity can help explain behavioral immune system responses studied by Schaller and colleagues (e.g., Schaller and Park, 2011). These researchers have repeatedly found that people will respond with negative biases toward out-group others who are heuristically associated with pathogen transmission, such as people who are obese or physically disabled (Park, Faulkner, and Schaller, 2003; Park, Schaller, and Crandall, 2007) – a clear-cut case of how evolved pattern formation can lead to irrational beliefs and negative behaviors toward others.
The other cognitive process that acts as a major player in the formation of beliefs is agenticity, the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency. Shermer argues that our evolved theory of mind, or capacity to be aware of the mental states and desires of others, has led people to attribute intentionality to the (often false) patterns we perceive. What can result are beliefs in things such as souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, karma, fate, and a vast array of other intentional agents controlling aspects of our lives. Amusing examples of agenticity include children's tendencies to draw faces on things that do not have intentionality, such as the sun, and cross-cultural beliefs that genital shaped foods such as oysters or bananas increase sexual potency. Shermer argues that people naturally develop supernatural and superstitious beliefs due to our evolved tendency to find meaningful patterns and impart to them intentional agency. He uses this evolutionary hypothesis to help explain other supernatural beliefs such as communication with the dead and the sensed-presence (or guardian angel) effect.
In his biological analysis, Shermer additionally discusses neurological influences on belief systems. Shermer uses scientific evidence to argue that what we often attribute as the “mind” is simply a byproduct of natural, evolved brain activity, thus dispelling the notion that the mind and brain are separate entities. He also argues that theory of mind is likely to be the result of evolved neural networks that enabled people with abilities crucial to survival in a complex world, such as the ability to distinguish animate and inanimate objects, to follow and hold another's eye gaze, to distinguish action and intention of others, and to plan goal-directed actions. These natural neural processes, however, may also play a crucial role in common dualistic beliefs of the mind as separate from the brain and the soul as separate from the body – these dualistic beliefs are often a very important component of religious and spiritual beliefs, the topic of the following section of Shermer's book.
- In the back of our mind lurk karmic conviction, making us to believe that bad things will happen to bad people. , https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/101488/MCDONALD-THESIS-2018.pdf?sequence=1 …
*"The Executioner" Bernard Hopkins!
Tae Heckard
Girl Fan Got Into A Car Accident Didn't UOENO It. (She Didn't Even Know She Got Into A Car Accident Y'all.)
"I MET HER OUT THE BLUE SKY...I TRULY NEVER KNEW Y!" - MR. FREE
THE LORD IS AN INDIAN GIVER, MY NIGGER!
Once belief is formed, our brains whir along to preserve it. The process of disbelieving takes a split second longer than believing; disbelieving triggers a neutral or unpleasant chemical response in the brain, while believing makes us feel good. Belief is further bolstered by an array of cognitive biases, of which the main ones are "confirmation bias"--we filter out data that conflicts, embrace data that confirms; "hindsight bias"--of the thousand risks that could have imperiled the shuttle Challenger, a frozen O-ring becomes the inevitable cause only in hindsight; and "self-justification bias"--we don't like to have been wrong. Shermer's explanation of these biases, and two dozen others, is alone worth the price of the book.
Pocahantas
Jesus Sent You That Piece Of Mail, Girl! Thank Him For Sending You That Piece Of Mail. I'm Going To Send This Book To You The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths And Excerpt Some Passages From It About The Human Minds Inherent Tendency To Make Type I And Type II Errors (We're Genetically Hardwired To Attribute Meaning To An Occurrence When There Is No Meaning). It's Along The Lines Of Only Remembering The Negative Things That Happen To Us (Why Do We Overwhelmingly Remember The Bad Things That Occur In Our Lives And Overestimate Their Chances Of Occurring Again? Because Our Minds Are Biased To Remember The Negative Things. Doing So Made Us Cautious, Less Likely To Repeat Them And More Likely To Survive).
2:33
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-do-we-believe-in-god-ii
Didn't go to Vegas like I wanted but I'm happy I was booked for a last minute shoot! Everything happens for a reason!
https://twitter.com/CloseUp360/status/1093557467886309376
“I'm a God-fearing man and what I take away from that night is purpose. I believe I'm here for a reason."
YOU IS UGLY IS WHAT YOU IS! BUT, HEY, YOU WAS SUPPOSED TO GET SLASHED, BUFFALO SOLDIER! THAT'S WHAT GOD HAD PREDESTINED FOR YOU SINCE CONCEPTION. WHY? BECAUSE THAT'S ALL PART OF HIS BIGGER PLAN FOR YOU, MY NIGGA! A BIGGER PLAN THAT INVOLVES YOU BENEFITING FROM THAT SLASHING! (HEY UGLY, CREATE WHATEVER FICTIONAL NARRATIVE ABOUT YOUR LIFE SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE SENSE OF YOUR LIFE (FROM A NON-SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE) AND DELUDE YOURSELF INTO BEING OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE!)
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1152820655735410690
The narrative self: We are the stories we tell others and ourselves about ourselves. Roy Baumeister on human uniqueness. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.26613/esic.3.1.112?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents …
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-oew-ayala-shermer31-2009jul31-story.html
In The Meantime, Both Of You Niggers Read The Article Above!
https://twitter.com/frank_ocean
frank ocean
Frank, Karma Doesn't Exist, But Even If It Did, Frank, You Wouldn't Inherit It. Know Why You Wouldn't Inherit It, Frank? Because There's No Genetic Component To Karma. Karma Isn't Something That Is In The DNA, Frank, So You Can't Inherit It Genetically. But Even If It Did Exist You STILL Wouldn't Be Able To Inherit It Non-Genetically Either, Frank, Since It's Random And Dependent Upon A Number Of Factors Unique To Each And Every Individual. By The Way, Frank, I Recently Heard Neyo Say That He Doesn't Believe In Coincidence (That Things Don't Happen Randomly), So I Guess He Believes Everything Happens For A Reason. Frank, Did I Tell You That The Human Brain Is Genetically Hardwired To Interpret Chance Occurrences As Being Meaningful? Did I Tell You That The Human Mind Is Inherently Programmed To Find Meaning And Purpose In Random Events? Did I Tell You That We Humans Have An Innate Drive To Make Sense Of The World And The Things That Randomly Happen To Us In Our Lives? Did I Tell You Any Of This Shit, Yet, Frank? If I Haven't Frank, I'll Share With You Excerpts From Psychology Books To Make Sure That I DO. I DO. I DO. I DO. I DO. I DO. I DOOOOOO.
It Was Meant To Be My Nigga! God Took Away One Brotha To Give You Another! God Is G00D, Y'all! (Hey, Folkz, Don't Let Him Know That God, Fate, And Destiny Don't Exist! His Nigga World Will Come Tumbling Down.) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/science/the-science-of-hot-hand.html?_r=0
"KARMA CUM AROUND LIKE UH BOOMER RANG!" -RALO THA PIIIIIIMP!
My friend's decisional error is precisely the mechanism by which individuals believe that their prayers are answered. For argument's sake, let's assume that in any given year, a woman prays for one thousand different outcomes, one of which comes to fruition. Hallelujah! Apparently, God has answered her prayers even though He apparently ignored the other 999. This is similar to thinking that "it always rains when I forget to take my umbrella with me." Let us suppose that this event has happened on five occasions. The brain codes each of these instances as an instantiation of that event. However, there are three other relevant events that are ignored: (1) the times it rained and I had an umbrella; (2) the times it did not rain and I had an umbrella; (3) the times it did not rain and I did not have an umbrella. Once all four possible events are accounted for, the frequency of the original event is placed in its proper perspective.
THINGS DON'T HAPPEN FOR A REASON, FOLKS, THEY JUST HAPPEN RANDOMLY. YOU THINK THEY HAPPEN FOR A REASON BECAUSE YOUR MIND IS INNATELY INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THINGS HAPPEN FOR A REASON. THIS TYPE OF REASONING GIVES YOU HOPE, MEANING, AND PURPOSE IN LIFE IN ADDITION TO HELPING YOU MAKE SENSE OF LIFE. BUT IN REALITY THINGS DON'T HAPPEN FOR A REASON. YOU JUST CREATE A REASON AND THEN FOOL YOURSELF INTO THINKING THAT IT HAPPENED FOR THAT REASON.
David Eagleman Retweeted