Most people have to deal with at least one bully at some point or another. Letting them get to you is giving them power over you. You put up a good fight once*, and the same one usually won't try it again. It is hard to find the fine line between asking for help and whining about it, granted, but, that's where the focus should be. This is something that children need to learn, to be able to function in a free society, and for us to retain Freedom of Speech.
Sometimes, authority figures do need to step in. That definitely doesn't mean all of the time, everyone needs to learn to deal with things for themselves, to stand up for themselves, and that a little pain (mental, emotional, or physical) isn't the end of the world. I feel that everyone should be able and willing to get in the ring if they need to, and that the strong are needed to ensure that it stays fair...
Words may hurt, but, so does skinning one's knee, falling off of a bike or horse, working hard, playing hard, and many other things that we need to be able to do to live our lives to the fullest. Babies learn that falling down hurts, but, you get over it, and it's the price we pay for mobility. As we told our youngest yesterday (after she scraped her second knee in an afternoon), kids should have skinned knees, it shows they're active and not afraid to play (and, she went back out to, too). Sadly, though, too many people want the world padded for complete comfort.
Do we really want our species to grow weak(er)? Do we want the kinds of kids who collapse at the first hint of hardship? Or, do we want our species to survive, as the kinds of people who will weather whatever the Universe throws at us, able to persevere past the point where they would have thought they'd die?
* Of course, it is essential to "read" potential opponents and pick an appropriate place, some are too psycho and need to be dealt with by authorities, some will band together and|or beat someone past the point of "just a beating." Some of the worst see saving face as worth coming back with a weapon to avenge a simple loss.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Tracy Morgan's Hate Speech
Like Chris Rock, at first I was prepared to defend his right to be an ass and use "blue" comedy... Unlike Chris, I researched & read what he said first.
Read the first-hand account here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=215375481828437&id=435585215186
According to audience member Kevin Rogers (who WAS a fan, fully expecting gays to be ripped on), "Tracy then said he didn't f****** care if he pissed off some gays..." Mr. Rogers also said, "The sad thing is that none of this rant was a joke. His entire demeanor changed during that portion of the night."
The reason I included the above text is, he acted like he was leading a Klan rally and said he knew and didn't care, but now, he does. SUUUUUUUUURE... Are we to be that gullible as a society?
Many people do need thicker skin about name calling (I don't think Kevin is one of them, though). Blue jokes, picking on people, even being outright offensive is alright. Harsh language and profanity are not a big deal, and while not acceptable in polite society, a different matter than this. Coddling the oversensitive regarding such things only promotes weakness (see my next post, http://billfleege.blogspot.com/2011/06/bullying-vs-coddling.html).
However, the things he said are too often reasons that people drag or lure gays out to be beaten to death, for families to turn their backs on their own over sexuality, and people to be bullied to the point of seeing no other option than suicide. Refuting irrefutable facts that people are fighting so hard to get acknowledged, so that they can simply live, leaps across the line.
He does have the right to be an ass, but, everyone else has the right to call him out on it and not support his bigotry (I've never watched "30 Rock" but, now, will never give it a chance as long as they employ either of his faces). Like in Charlie Sheen's case, his employers have the right to distance themselves from him. He (Morgan) has earned at least the reaction Mel Gibson got over antisemitism.
I say, no amount of apology should matter at all, the gay community can only damage itself in calling for or accepting one. I would either use the opportunity to tell him off or boycott even that, not pretend that a reversal makes any difference.
Let a jackass be a jackass, and let it be known that he is, so capitalism can show people's opinions.
Read the first-hand account here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=215375481828437&id=435585215186
According to audience member Kevin Rogers (who WAS a fan, fully expecting gays to be ripped on), "Tracy then said he didn't f****** care if he pissed off some gays..." Mr. Rogers also said, "The sad thing is that none of this rant was a joke. His entire demeanor changed during that portion of the night."
The reason I included the above text is, he acted like he was leading a Klan rally and said he knew and didn't care, but now, he does. SUUUUUUUUURE... Are we to be that gullible as a society?
Many people do need thicker skin about name calling (I don't think Kevin is one of them, though). Blue jokes, picking on people, even being outright offensive is alright. Harsh language and profanity are not a big deal, and while not acceptable in polite society, a different matter than this. Coddling the oversensitive regarding such things only promotes weakness (see my next post, http://billfleege.blogspot.com/2011/06/bullying-vs-coddling.html).
However, the things he said are too often reasons that people drag or lure gays out to be beaten to death, for families to turn their backs on their own over sexuality, and people to be bullied to the point of seeing no other option than suicide. Refuting irrefutable facts that people are fighting so hard to get acknowledged, so that they can simply live, leaps across the line.
He does have the right to be an ass, but, everyone else has the right to call him out on it and not support his bigotry (I've never watched "30 Rock" but, now, will never give it a chance as long as they employ either of his faces). Like in Charlie Sheen's case, his employers have the right to distance themselves from him. He (Morgan) has earned at least the reaction Mel Gibson got over antisemitism.
I say, no amount of apology should matter at all, the gay community can only damage itself in calling for or accepting one. I would either use the opportunity to tell him off or boycott even that, not pretend that a reversal makes any difference.
Let a jackass be a jackass, and let it be known that he is, so capitalism can show people's opinions.
Scientific Proof that Homosexuality is Not a Choice
Of course, these findings were only published after they were absolutely sure, and others have tried, and failed, to disprove them.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49673/
To summarize/translate, physical difference between male brains and female brains is actually more so between straight male brains and gay male brains. That means this is how they were born (or created, for you religious types) and their feelings are just as real as anyone else's.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080616-gay-brain.html
There are more physical differences than just the anterior commissure that are measurable and not affected by environment to show that homosexuals are born that way and have no choice in sexual orientation.
The hypothalamic differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains were identified in 1991, the anterior commissure differences in 1992... Yet, few people are apparently aware, and the issue is still debated as if these studies don't exist.
Trying to stop same-sex Civil Unions is as much a prejudice as preventing people from marrying another nationality than their own. Shouting "f****t" is no less wrong than shouting "n****r" and the "icky" feelings are as wrong as those one might feel the first time confronted with another race.
Homophobia is a choice founded in environment, homosexuality is not.
Those of you with spouses, imagine if it was "wrong" to love them and ask yourself, "Would I be able and willing to make the choice not to love because someone else says God says my love is wrong?"
Better still, would you be able to pretend with someone of your same sex if that was what was expected of you?
It is no less outrageous to expect a gay person to live as straight or without ever knowing romantic love.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49673/
To summarize/translate, physical difference between male brains and female brains is actually more so between straight male brains and gay male brains. That means this is how they were born (or created, for you religious types) and their feelings are just as real as anyone else's.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080616-gay-brain.html
There are more physical differences than just the anterior commissure that are measurable and not affected by environment to show that homosexuals are born that way and have no choice in sexual orientation.
The hypothalamic differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains were identified in 1991, the anterior commissure differences in 1992... Yet, few people are apparently aware, and the issue is still debated as if these studies don't exist.
Trying to stop same-sex Civil Unions is as much a prejudice as preventing people from marrying another nationality than their own. Shouting "f****t" is no less wrong than shouting "n****r" and the "icky" feelings are as wrong as those one might feel the first time confronted with another race.
Homophobia is a choice founded in environment, homosexuality is not.
Those of you with spouses, imagine if it was "wrong" to love them and ask yourself, "Would I be able and willing to make the choice not to love because someone else says God says my love is wrong?"
Better still, would you be able to pretend with someone of your same sex if that was what was expected of you?
It is no less outrageous to expect a gay person to live as straight or without ever knowing romantic love.
Adoption Agencies Closing on Account of Civil Unions
Catholic Charities of Rockford are ending adoption & foster care because they supposedly feel/fear that they'll have to go against their principles and beliefs. They aren't avoiding a potential problem, they're creating one in a self-fulfilling doom prophesy. It's just a way of emotionally extorting allies against the gays. Of course, I'll prove it...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/religion/ct-met-rockford-catholic-charities-st20110526,0,6858349.story
I was told that other adoption agencies were also looking to close, claiming that they will be forced to facilitate children being raised in homosexual households. However, I gave up looking through the hate-speech and malignant misinformation that goes along with the subject to find which. It's not worth losing more hope for humanity just to list them...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1826&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=30661&SessionID=51
From the Illinois Religious Protection and Civil Union Act:
"Section 15. Religious freedom. Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union."
In case that's not clear enough, religious groups don't even have to treat a Civil Union with dignity or respect ("solemnize"), they're free to ostracize and condemn homosexuals, committed or not, the same as always... Their religiously rationalized prejudice is protected, despite increasing evidence that sexuality is not a matter of choice.
The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act does not specifically say that religious organizations will have to grant adoptions to couples in Civil Unions. The way the law works, that alone means they will not.
The law is very explicit and in legalese for a reason. Supposed notes, memos, et cetera (especially that they can/do not provide) are not applicable, particularly in a court of law. If they got sued, the plaintiff can be counter-sued for legal fees. Facing that, with no law to stand behind, who's going to try?
Being married does NOT guarantee eligibility to adopt, so, the standards have not changed.
It is almost unbelievable that anyone can allow their religion to be the reason bigotry is allowed to so adversely affect so many people. Do they actually care about the kids or are they just bargaining chips and|or crossfire casualties?
Whose morals are more offensive, the so-called sinners or those who are willing to use innocents as pawns to keep them from officially committing to their relationships?
I've also provided proof that homosexuality is not a choice, in the next post (http://billfleege.blogspot.com/2011/06/scientific-proof-that-homosexuality-is.html).
In researching, I also found that while only 5 allow same-sex marriage, only 25 States strictly prohibit first cousin marriage. Here in Illinois, it's allowed if one or both are sterile... Naturally, I couldn't find anything regarding eligibility of such kissin' cousins to adopt children.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/religion/ct-met-rockford-catholic-charities-st20110526,0,6858349.story
I was told that other adoption agencies were also looking to close, claiming that they will be forced to facilitate children being raised in homosexual households. However, I gave up looking through the hate-speech and malignant misinformation that goes along with the subject to find which. It's not worth losing more hope for humanity just to list them...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1826&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=30661&SessionID=51
From the Illinois Religious Protection and Civil Union Act:
"Section 15. Religious freedom. Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union."
In case that's not clear enough, religious groups don't even have to treat a Civil Union with dignity or respect ("solemnize"), they're free to ostracize and condemn homosexuals, committed or not, the same as always... Their religiously rationalized prejudice is protected, despite increasing evidence that sexuality is not a matter of choice.
The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act does not specifically say that religious organizations will have to grant adoptions to couples in Civil Unions. The way the law works, that alone means they will not.
The law is very explicit and in legalese for a reason. Supposed notes, memos, et cetera (especially that they can/do not provide) are not applicable, particularly in a court of law. If they got sued, the plaintiff can be counter-sued for legal fees. Facing that, with no law to stand behind, who's going to try?
Being married does NOT guarantee eligibility to adopt, so, the standards have not changed.
It is almost unbelievable that anyone can allow their religion to be the reason bigotry is allowed to so adversely affect so many people. Do they actually care about the kids or are they just bargaining chips and|or crossfire casualties?
Whose morals are more offensive, the so-called sinners or those who are willing to use innocents as pawns to keep them from officially committing to their relationships?
If the Bible said a specific race was "wrong," would Christians act this way toward that race? Or, would they choose to believe that's one of the things like 1 Timothy 2 (women must be obedient, fully submissive, even, quiet, and never in charge of men or adorned in any way, including hairdos) that shouldn't be followed?
If the religious "superiors" can choose like that, why pick prejudice?
If the religious "superiors" can choose like that, why pick prejudice?
I've also provided proof that homosexuality is not a choice, in the next post (http://billfleege.blogspot.com/2011/06/scientific-proof-that-homosexuality-is.html).
In researching, I also found that while only 5 allow same-sex marriage, only 25 States strictly prohibit first cousin marriage. Here in Illinois, it's allowed if one or both are sterile... Naturally, I couldn't find anything regarding eligibility of such kissin' cousins to adopt children.
Cryptozoology!
Once upon a time, man was sure, to the point of killing people for saying otherwise, that the world was flat. Louis Pasteur* was ridiculed by "experts" for warning of invisible threats; they laughed about "demons" and the folly of washing hands and surgical implements - before germs were positively identified. Every moment of history has had the same mindset: "These are the most modern times ever, we know more than ever before, and there isn't much left to learn." It's oblivious, obvious idiocy, incessantly stunting the growth of knowledge.
The number of animals found alive (or very recently so) that were previously thought to be extinct or fictitious keeps growing. Coelacanth, man-eating catfish, freshwater (and river) dolphins, South American Leopards (first thought to be "ghosts" that simply took people, completely disbelieved by outsiders until found), North American Jaguars (as far north as Iceland, even), Sumatran Forest Elephants, Bili Apes (whether or not they're chimps, they are much larger, have different behaviors and build nests on the ground), the range of the North American Mountain Lion (SURPRISE!), sharks in rivers... there are too many to list, I'll put links at the end for a few (especially see the one on the Orang Pendek).
People fail to recognize the significance that in Sumatra, 400 forest elephants (ELEPHANTS!) were able to avoid human knowledge of their herds for generations (minimally). They lived, a hidden unknown, around human habitations until a cryptozoologist found them while searching for Orang Pendek (yet another Yeti/Bigfoot/Sasquatch type primate). Local villagers, who knew the forest better than anyone else could, were unaware of their presence, it took motion-capture cameras to find them. Try to tell yourself that smaller groups of more human-like apes wouldn't be better at hiding their existence from smelly, scary, noisy creatures like humans.
Many ask "If they're out there, why haven't people seen them?" in response to witness accounts. Seriously...
The two biggest hurdles to cryptozoology are people believing one or the other extreme ("Must have been a dragon!" or "Must have been a deer/hoax.") and people "knowing" more than they actually know. Either a witness sees something more unusual, the mind filling in fuzzy spots with fantasy, or someone presumes that what they've seen must have been something more common. One extreme says that just because one sighting of a particular cryptid was a hoax, all must be, the other wants too desperately to believe there is more out there, becoming too easily taken in by fakes.
Scientists often ASSume that they know the result before the research, they're trying to prove something instead of answering "what would happen if..." Even when they are good about that, there is always a hypothesis to justify an experiment. Yet, they dismiss scientists who explore the unknown, citing that they're looking for evidence to support their opinions and hold them responsible as fraudulent (or at least disproved) for each piece that is found not to be what they thought. Inconclusive evidence is treated as non-existent because there is nothing to compare it to - an unidentified species must be a problem with the test or evidence, not that the species hasn't been identified yet. Unless they capture one alive, kill and autopsy it in full view of skeptic scientists (who wouldn't be caught dead in such positions) there will be no acknowledgement of findings.
Why would one even bother putting on a labcoat if they already knew all there is to know?
Now, if you were out there searching, and discovered that there was this other species, which expends effort to hide its peaceful existence from a species of hunters and destroyers (our first act as a species was to wipe out our closest competitors, and we haven't gotten nicer), would you expose them and thus destroy their lives? So, therefore, who knows how many people may have had direct contact with other evolutionary offshoots of humanity. As K said in "Men in Black," "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
*Whether or not Pasteur was a plagiarist or any other allegations, he popularized the theory, which is all that matters to this.
LINKS!
I highly recommend "River Monsters" on Animal Planet, Jeremy Wade is great.
The Coelacanth - http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/coelacanth/
For "man-eating catfish" look up the "Paraiba," "Goonch" and "Wels Catfish" and look for yourself. http://conservationreport.com/2008/10/13/reel-big-fish-giant-catfish-in-india-turn-to-preying-on-humans/ Plenty of people staunchly insist that catfish, no matter how big, do not eat people. However, "noodling" wouldn't work if that was the case, that's a catfish WAY too small to eat a person trying to anyway, because a limb is there. Yes, places like Snopes have debunked a particular pic, which is actually of a whale shark, but that doesn't mean that people haven't been eaten by catfish, particularly in India's Kali River (with that name, why be surprised that things in it will eat you?). "River Monsters" is one of few shows on the subject that I find believable and unlikely to be fake.
http://animal.discovery.co
Freshwater Dolphins: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=requiem-for-a-freshwater-dolphin
River Dolphins: http://lilt.ilstu.edu/psanders/litsearch/riverdolphins.htm
Shockingly, we allegedly also have White Sperm Whales here in Lake Michigan! http://www.lakemichiganwhales.com/
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/series/beast-hunter/5106/Overview202#tab-facts - This is the show & episode that incidentally discovered the 400 forest elephants, although that isn't even mentioned... This page is strictly evidence regarding the Orang Pendek.
So, how sure can anyone be about what we don't know yet?
The number of animals found alive (or very recently so) that were previously thought to be extinct or fictitious keeps growing. Coelacanth, man-eating catfish, freshwater (and river) dolphins, South American Leopards (first thought to be "ghosts" that simply took people, completely disbelieved by outsiders until found), North American Jaguars (as far north as Iceland, even), Sumatran Forest Elephants, Bili Apes (whether or not they're chimps, they are much larger, have different behaviors and build nests on the ground), the range of the North American Mountain Lion (SURPRISE!), sharks in rivers... there are too many to list, I'll put links at the end for a few (especially see the one on the Orang Pendek).
People fail to recognize the significance that in Sumatra, 400 forest elephants (ELEPHANTS!) were able to avoid human knowledge of their herds for generations (minimally). They lived, a hidden unknown, around human habitations until a cryptozoologist found them while searching for Orang Pendek (yet another Yeti/Bigfoot/Sasquatch type primate). Local villagers, who knew the forest better than anyone else could, were unaware of their presence, it took motion-capture cameras to find them. Try to tell yourself that smaller groups of more human-like apes wouldn't be better at hiding their existence from smelly, scary, noisy creatures like humans.
Many ask "If they're out there, why haven't people seen them?" in response to witness accounts. Seriously...
The two biggest hurdles to cryptozoology are people believing one or the other extreme ("Must have been a dragon!" or "Must have been a deer/hoax.") and people "knowing" more than they actually know. Either a witness sees something more unusual, the mind filling in fuzzy spots with fantasy, or someone presumes that what they've seen must have been something more common. One extreme says that just because one sighting of a particular cryptid was a hoax, all must be, the other wants too desperately to believe there is more out there, becoming too easily taken in by fakes.
Scientists often ASSume that they know the result before the research, they're trying to prove something instead of answering "what would happen if..." Even when they are good about that, there is always a hypothesis to justify an experiment. Yet, they dismiss scientists who explore the unknown, citing that they're looking for evidence to support their opinions and hold them responsible as fraudulent (or at least disproved) for each piece that is found not to be what they thought. Inconclusive evidence is treated as non-existent because there is nothing to compare it to - an unidentified species must be a problem with the test or evidence, not that the species hasn't been identified yet. Unless they capture one alive, kill and autopsy it in full view of skeptic scientists (who wouldn't be caught dead in such positions) there will be no acknowledgement of findings.
Why would one even bother putting on a labcoat if they already knew all there is to know?
Now, if you were out there searching, and discovered that there was this other species, which expends effort to hide its peaceful existence from a species of hunters and destroyers (our first act as a species was to wipe out our closest competitors, and we haven't gotten nicer), would you expose them and thus destroy their lives? So, therefore, who knows how many people may have had direct contact with other evolutionary offshoots of humanity. As K said in "Men in Black," "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
*Whether or not Pasteur was a plagiarist or any other allegations, he popularized the theory, which is all that matters to this.
LINKS!
I highly recommend "River Monsters" on Animal Planet, Jeremy Wade is great.
The Coelacanth - http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/coelacanth/
For "man-eating catfish" look up the "Paraiba," "Goonch" and "Wels Catfish" and look for yourself. http://conservationreport.com/2008/10/13/reel-big-fish-giant-catfish-in-india-turn-to-preying-on-humans/ Plenty of people staunchly insist that catfish, no matter how big, do not eat people. However, "noodling" wouldn't work if that was the case, that's a catfish WAY too small to eat a person trying to anyway, because a limb is there. Yes, places like Snopes have debunked a particular pic, which is actually of a whale shark, but that doesn't mean that people haven't been eaten by catfish, particularly in India's Kali River (with that name, why be surprised that things in it will eat you?). "River Monsters" is one of few shows on the subject that I find believable and unlikely to be fake.
http://animal.discovery.co
Freshwater Dolphins: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=requiem-for-a-freshwater-dolphin
River Dolphins: http://lilt.ilstu.edu/psanders/litsearch/riverdolphins.htm
Shockingly, we allegedly also have White Sperm Whales here in Lake Michigan! http://www.lakemichiganwhales.com/
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/series/beast-hunter/5106/Overview202#tab-facts - This is the show & episode that incidentally discovered the 400 forest elephants, although that isn't even mentioned... This page is strictly evidence regarding the Orang Pendek.
So, how sure can anyone be about what we don't know yet?
The Neurology of Beliefs
THIS DOES NOT MEAN RELIGION IS FALSE OR TRUE, nor that any particular political position is (even non-partisan). I am not even speculating on either in this... The point and purpose is the scientific proof that neurotypical ("normal") people deal with deep-seated beliefs like religion and politics (faith and loyalty, basically) using an emotional part of the brain rather than an intellectual one.
This is how good people can do or defend evil actions out of religious/partisan beliefs without seeing it.
It is very sad and frustrating, but also likely linked to the good effects. This is part of why I am not entirely anti-religion, although it means fighting emotion with seemingly invisible facts & logic when people need to see that they are being misled by those they trust with biologically imperative implicitness.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/06/0811717106.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
From the study's text (this is the closest to layman's terms that it gets):
"To investigate the process of adopting or rejecting religious beliefs and how it relates with religiosity, we performed a nonparametric analysis. Disagreeing (compared to agreeing) with religious statements among religious (compared to nonreligious) participants engaged bilateral anterior insulae and middle cingulate gyri. The anterior insulae are key areas for emotional-cognitive integration (45), and insular recruitment for rejecting religious beliefs implies a greater role of emotions in the process."
On the positive ends, faithful people end up with less stress chemicals, and, of course, hope and positive mental attitude are and have effects of their own. Meditation and prayer have also been proven to have direct neurological benefits.
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132078267/neurotheology-where-religion-and-science-collide
If you want more on the positive effects of faith, find/pick it out for yourself, a significant part of me is periodically jealous that I really CANNOT feel that for myself, just don't have that capacity (sorry, but my loyalty has to be deserved to be retained and my faith is hard-won based solely upon personal experience). Life always looks sooooo much easier & happier with faith and|or a few less IQ points. It's a trade-off, but I appreciate the added ability to protect and defend more effectively and be directly sure of and consciously control my own ethics.
The last link was chosen for simplicity of reading, as this is irrelevant to the reason I wrote this. However, I hope you note that I use official links by people & orgs that have and rely on professional reputations (which haven't already been ruined with fact-centric people like me), and try to use the most impartial as well. There are several other studies that could be included for both parts, but it seems I provide too much info too often, and none of the many I've read over the years (which I could consider remotely trustworthy) contradicted either.
This is how good people can do or defend evil actions out of religious/partisan beliefs without seeing it.
It is very sad and frustrating, but also likely linked to the good effects. This is part of why I am not entirely anti-religion, although it means fighting emotion with seemingly invisible facts & logic when people need to see that they are being misled by those they trust with biologically imperative implicitness.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/06/0811717106.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
From the study's text (this is the closest to layman's terms that it gets):
"To investigate the process of adopting or rejecting religious beliefs and how it relates with religiosity, we performed a nonparametric analysis. Disagreeing (compared to agreeing) with religious statements among religious (compared to nonreligious) participants engaged bilateral anterior insulae and middle cingulate gyri. The anterior insulae are key areas for emotional-cognitive integration (45), and insular recruitment for rejecting religious beliefs implies a greater role of emotions in the process."
On the positive ends, faithful people end up with less stress chemicals, and, of course, hope and positive mental attitude are and have effects of their own. Meditation and prayer have also been proven to have direct neurological benefits.
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132078267/neurotheology-where-religion-and-science-collide
If you want more on the positive effects of faith, find/pick it out for yourself, a significant part of me is periodically jealous that I really CANNOT feel that for myself, just don't have that capacity (sorry, but my loyalty has to be deserved to be retained and my faith is hard-won based solely upon personal experience). Life always looks sooooo much easier & happier with faith and|or a few less IQ points. It's a trade-off, but I appreciate the added ability to protect and defend more effectively and be directly sure of and consciously control my own ethics.
The last link was chosen for simplicity of reading, as this is irrelevant to the reason I wrote this. However, I hope you note that I use official links by people & orgs that have and rely on professional reputations (which haven't already been ruined with fact-centric people like me), and try to use the most impartial as well. There are several other studies that could be included for both parts, but it seems I provide too much info too often, and none of the many I've read over the years (which I could consider remotely trustworthy) contradicted either.
More muscles to frown than smile? FALSE. Expert insistence? Idiocy, as usual.
I spent much of an evening looking up that modern adage, and found (as expected) MANY "experts" with differing answers. Short answer: it takes 12 for a genuine smile and 11 for a frown. That aside, if it feels better to smile, do it. Those fake model smiles can take as little as two.
If one's smiley muscles are more exercised, they will feel better and take less effort to use. Besides, smile lines look a lot better later in life than scowl furrows. Isn't the truth better incentive in just about any instance anyway?
Really, if you just believe and pass on whatever you hear or read, you may be misinforming, whether or not it's innocent and pleasant or from sources you trust. Even those mistakes and light little white lies reinforce to people like me that the only way to be is having little or no faith in what others wholeheartedly hold as absolute facts. That is, at least until it has been satisfactorily proven to/by us.
Most "experts" can't be trusted at all, they believe what they say, and believe that they know all that there is to know about their particular field of expertise. However, history has proved their ilk wrong too many times for any tome of tiny text to list, and the most modern are no exception.
Two things to remember in regards to all knowledge: First, some time in the future, the average person with the average education will look back on this century as primitive and mislead by baseless, ludicrous, superstitious beliefs. Second, centuries ago, they felt as we do now: these are the most modern times ever, with more knowledge and technological advancement than mankind has ever had, almost everything that we can know has been (or is being) figured out.
Benjamin Franklin had what, two years of school? Then, too, not all that long ago, the most educated men in the world once insisted to the point of screaming "heresy" that the world was flat.
For more details on the smile & frown issue, look it up yourself. At http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2489/does-it-take-fewer-muscles-to-smile-than-it-does-to-frown they are listed, as asked of a plastic surgeon (Dr. David Song) who works with them professionally. It was the best one I found, in plain layman's terms (except the muscles' names) and referenced repeatedly, but not exclusively.
I also found that there are only 53 facial muscles, and of those, 36 named as involved in making facial expressions at all (and decided not to list them here, but can find them again if you want)... Anyway, that means that almost all of the other allegations out there are most likely erroneous, thus lending even more credence to Dr. Song and those who agree with his numbers.
If one's smiley muscles are more exercised, they will feel better and take less effort to use. Besides, smile lines look a lot better later in life than scowl furrows. Isn't the truth better incentive in just about any instance anyway?
Really, if you just believe and pass on whatever you hear or read, you may be misinforming, whether or not it's innocent and pleasant or from sources you trust. Even those mistakes and light little white lies reinforce to people like me that the only way to be is having little or no faith in what others wholeheartedly hold as absolute facts. That is, at least until it has been satisfactorily proven to/by us.
Most "experts" can't be trusted at all, they believe what they say, and believe that they know all that there is to know about their particular field of expertise. However, history has proved their ilk wrong too many times for any tome of tiny text to list, and the most modern are no exception.
Two things to remember in regards to all knowledge: First, some time in the future, the average person with the average education will look back on this century as primitive and mislead by baseless, ludicrous, superstitious beliefs. Second, centuries ago, they felt as we do now: these are the most modern times ever, with more knowledge and technological advancement than mankind has ever had, almost everything that we can know has been (or is being) figured out.
Benjamin Franklin had what, two years of school? Then, too, not all that long ago, the most educated men in the world once insisted to the point of screaming "heresy" that the world was flat.
For more details on the smile & frown issue, look it up yourself. At http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2489/does-it-take-fewer-muscles-to-smile-than-it-does-to-frown they are listed, as asked of a plastic surgeon (Dr. David Song) who works with them professionally. It was the best one I found, in plain layman's terms (except the muscles' names) and referenced repeatedly, but not exclusively.
I also found that there are only 53 facial muscles, and of those, 36 named as involved in making facial expressions at all (and decided not to list them here, but can find them again if you want)... Anyway, that means that almost all of the other allegations out there are most likely erroneous, thus lending even more credence to Dr. Song and those who agree with his numbers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)