Are humans "hardwired" to be either idealistic or pragmatic

Perception, thanks for the biology lesson. But, regardless of how we are hardwired for physical features, size, early environment, we as humans are capable of changing not only I.Q. but the "structure" of the brain (chamistry) as well. We can change the very foundation (potential) for who we are, the environment in which we live. We can change anything about ourselves (well, most) but we cannot set about to change anything about another, or others.

If someone sees the world a certain way (idealism), well, let them live in it THAT way. We are polarized in our thinking in the present because each side (liberal/conservative) accuses the other of trying to force their ideas on them.

And, you are wrong (unless you're speaking of "destiny"), tons of material about how to advance (become a leader?) yourself in this world is found in books.

Guess I would say that we are all hard-wired to "seek out understanding" of wherever we find ourselves so we can change. If we're static, we may as well be dead.

0 Replies

Tex-Star wrote:

we as humans are capable of changing not only I.Q. but the "structure" of the brain (chamistry) as well. We can change the very foundation (potential) for who we are,

Oh really-----I would like to have an IQ of 200 (which is somewhat greater than I currently have) please tell me how I can accomplish this amazing feat.

BTW---I agree that with the introduction of certain chemicals into the brain we can alter the brain chemistry to a small degree(as in treating clinical depression) but the effect is far from certain and is only temporary. Also a certain diet will enhance the production of certain amino acids which in turn will provide a better environment for the firing of certain synapses. Since it is very risky to inject any chemical directly into the nervous system via spinal tap it is just not done, the introduction of any drug or chemical through the blood is also of unknown quantity because of the blood brain barrier which acts as a filter. Enough of neurobiology----it is just too complex.

I anxiously awaiting your formulae for enlarging my IQ.

0 Replies

truth
Blatham, that is the vulgar notion of Pragmatism. You need to read C.S. Pierce and William James. Your description was not of pragmatism; it was of crass utilitarianism.
By the way, I suspect that we are not "hardwired" to ask any question; we are culturally and psychologically "programmed" to do so (i.e., keeping with the computer analogy: it is a condition of our software).

0 Replies

I get multiple penis enlargement e-mails every day. I'm sure somewhere there's one to enlarge the old IQ there.

0 Replies

truth
Thanks Cav. Now I know why my wife put that patch on my forehead.

0 Replies

Actually, that was directed to perception, JL. I'm still wondering if perception does indeed have amazing feet. What would that indicate? A tendency towards the left or the right? Hmm....I favour my right to some extent right now, but I did sprain my toe, so that's to be expected.

0 Replies

Quote:

BTW----In today's world the idealists are gaining rapidly because there was no real threat to them-----I would posit that 9/II changed all that. The terrorist will probably target the idealist first because the idealist probably won't fight back----he will try to negotiate.

What is a terrorist if not a completely committed idealist? You're throwing around these terms as though there were one set of ideals and one group of people prescribe to them, and the other group is strictly pragmatic with no ideals to follow whatsoever. Your so-called "pragamatists" have ideals that they are working to make manifest, and your "idealists" follow certain pragmatic courses of action to make manifest their ideals manifest.

I understand that you're trying to paint the right as a group of economically minded individuals, but this simply isn't the case. Pragmatism carries the day until there are votes to curry in steel-states, and then free trade (the quintessentially pragmatic approach to economic policy) goes out the window in favor of protectionism.

Sorry, but all you're doing is employing the standard tactic of bipartisan "debate" in America, which is to try to paint broad character differences between yourself and your opponent, get your supporters approriately emotionally invested, and in the meantime try to pursue whatever mish-mash of goals you happen to have, while your opponent does the same.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

I get multiple penis enlargement e-mails every day. I'm sure somewhere there's one to enlarge the old IQ there.

I need both---got'ny.

0 Replies

Patiodog wrote:

I understand that you're trying to paint the right as a group of economically minded individuals, but this simply isn't the case. Pragmatism carries the day until there are votes to curry in steel-states, and then free trade (the quintessentially pragmatic approach to economic policy) goes out the window in favor of protectionism.

PD
You must have me confused with Blatham who said this:

Blatham wrote:

a pragmatist...the accountant sitting at a big round oak table with a group of lawyers and board executives and they are calulating how much GM will be sued for the faulty tanks that explode burning all the passengers in 9.3% of rear end collisions and will the cost of a recall exceed the projected legal fees and a multi-million dollar legal probability. That accountant, and the others there, are pragmatists.

0 Replies

No, sir, I am no. You equate idealism with the liberal argument (which really isn't) and pragmatism with the conservative argument (which isn't, either). Both segments have their idealists and pragmatists among them.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

As you have already realized I equate idealism with liberal thought and pragmatism with conservative thought therefore my interest in finding a "tidy" package to explain the current polarization between the two camps.

Yes, this is what I had suspected, and disagree with. Take sex education/ control of AIDS, for example. I think it is far more pragmatic to provide thorough education and supplies (condoms) that will mitigate the risks of having sex, than to just teach abstinence.

Or abortion. I think the idea that outlawing abortion will stop it is the more idealistic view.

As I have talked about before and others have alluded to here, I think it is a natural tendency of humans to "chunk", to take a whole bunch of information and fit it into a neat little package. It's a survival mechanism, a way of dealing with the enormous amount of information out there. It's infinitely easier to memorize the placement of 20 lines formed into a rudimentary house shape than to memorize the placement of those same 20 lines in a random arrangement.

So while I understand this instinct and its usefulness, it can be taken too far. Thinking, "all black people are murderous thugs" might be easier than a more nuanced view, but that doesn't make it right, in either the factually correct or ethically correct sense.

I think people have always had this tendency to "chunk" -- I'll call that hard-wired, it's a survival instinct. I think the difference these days is the enormous amount of information available, the ready-made chunking provided by the media, and the effort required to pull apart the chunks and see the nuance. It is easier to say, "I am a Republican (or Democrat or Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian or LibCon or Green or...)" than to say, "I am pro-choice, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, anti-Patiot Act..." And of course all of those are themselves chunks... "Pro-choice" is it's own chunk that has several sub-chunks/ nuances, etc., etc.

I much prefer that things be discussed on as specific and non-chunked of a level as possible, and that's where some of the most interesting discussions have taken place, where the chunky labels come together and have some real dialogue.

0 Replies

I took forever to compose that (was interrupted many times), see that patiodog has said something similar more succinctly.

0 Replies

truth
Perception, as I said before it would be great if one could make direct contact with one of these companies and ask if they have any penis reducing pills or patches.
But that would be too much to ask.

0 Replies

truth
Patiodog and Sozobe. You both make sense on this issue. I personally like to use the distinction between "lumpers" and "splitters." Sometimes it is adviseable to lump (for many obvious reasons) and sometimes it is possible to split excessively ( making hair-splitting distinctions that do not further understanding).

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Perception, as I said before it would be great if one could make direct contact with one of these companies and ask if they have any penis reducing pills or patches.
But that would be too much to ask.

JL
Are you complaining or advertising? Laughing

0 Replies

truth
Perception, joking.

0 Replies

Quote:

JLNobody wrote:
Perception, as I said before it would be great if one could make direct contact with one of these companies and ask if they have any penis reducing pills or patches.
But that would be too much to ask.

It's quite simple, really: put the patch on backwards.

0 Replies

truth
PD, Laughing

Now that's thinking outside of the box.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Quote:
JLNobody wrote:
Perception, as I said before it would be great if one could make direct contact with one of these companies and ask if they have any penis reducing pills or patches.
But that would be too much to ask.

It's quite simple, really: put the patch on backwards.

PD

Great example of creative thinking Laughing

0 Replies

I'm hoping it's the kind of thinking that will get me far. I've tried the same approach with dieting. It works, but the side effects are very, um, uncomfortable.

0 Replies

Are humans "hardwired" to be either idealistic or pragmatic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know