[Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20

[Alice Andrews]

Hi Lynn,
Yes, thanks for reminding me re both of those guys in relation to the question (I like both of them!): I'll do a search for them and see if i can find that particular article! 
Also...a while ago I was reading "The Age of Bifurcation: Understanding the Changing World" by Ervin Laszlo, and he had a wonderful few pages on how to be a materialist and spiritual at the same  time. He's speaking at a place in MA--and seems to be connected to WIE?--the place that Howard seems to be connected to...I wish I could go...
cheerys,
Alice



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. 
  To: Alice Andrews ; The new improved paleopsych list 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20


  Marty Seligman (learned helplessness theorist, Learned Optimism, Authentic Happiness, former APA president) - an atheist - mentions that as a key to true happiness. He reviews literature that religious people are generally happier and more fulfilled, more resilient. Czentmyhali (spelling!) at U Chicago finds that kids involved in something greater than themselves are much more likely to experience "flow" and periods of greater happiness. Religion is clearly an adaptive force. BTW, I don't want to hear arguments that religion is behind most wars. That is a pretty tired argument that was thoroughly debunked by the 20th Century. 
  Lynn

  Alice Andrews wrote:

    Hi Gerry,
    Thanks for the note...
    There was an interesting article somewhere--maybe Frank sent it in?--about teenagers and the possiblity that what they were missing was 'religion' or 'spirituality' or a 'sense of purpose and meaning beyond them.' Do you remember reading that on paleo some time ago? I can't find it...But it seems apropos to your missive. (If anyone knows it and can send out again, I'd appreciate!)
    Thanks and cheers,
    Alice

    Hi Alice,

    Thanks for the rec re: Nesse's  "Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment".  Although I still haven't read it I'm familiar with its contents.  The issue of 'commitment' especially for young people is something that definitely needs addressing and maybe requiring our youth to make a firm political commitment to a particular party will carry over to their demonstrating less risky behavior with drugs, sex, employment, family or whatever.  Yet isn't our youth already politically brainwashed into political awareness or have they flicked away that duty as well?  I no longer hang out with our country's young but when I did I found that very few had their head screwed on correctly and many were adrift;  from what I hear now they still continue on their aimless flow.  When I wrote my original answer my thoughts were on "my generation", not the others.  Thanks for your post.

    I'll add the book to my list.

    Gerry



    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Alice Andrews 
    To: The new improved paleopsych list 
    Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:30 PM
    Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20


    Hi Gerry, 
    Randy Nesse edited a book called "Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment"; do you know it? It's wonderful... if you don't. (His 'Commitment in the Clinic' chapter is superb, btw.) Anyway, I think the book addresses your question. The word 'commitment' itself addresses the question. We have evolved mechanisms for detecting commitment and for detecting possible defection in others. People who tow the party line, etc. are considered committed. We seek out such people because it is proximately and ultimately adaptive to do so. Befriending, supporting, trusting, etc. the uncommitted would have been-- and still is, a risk (or threat). Such risks could have been very costly over our evolutionary history and can be still today. Of course, sometimes such risks (siding with someone who seems to be sitting on the fence, uncommitted, a rebel) can be to one's advantage. But 'ancient-brain' doesn't know this--and probably 'statistics-brain' doesn't know this either!
    Anyway, enough late-night babbling! It's a good book and might answer your question...
    All best!
    Alice
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: G. Reinhart-Waller 
      To: The new improved paleopsych list 
      Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM
      Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20


      >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative
      dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance,
      a threat to shared assumptions that define a group
      against another.

      This is absolutely amazing!  Why would any audience 
      reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal 
      or conservative camp?  Please explain the threat you 
      feel is apparent.  This I need to hear!

      Gerry


      _______________________________________________
      paleopsych mailing list
      paleopsych at paleopsych.org
      http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    _______________________________________________
    paleopsych mailing list
    paleopsych at paleopsych.org
    http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20050223/4af5703e/attachment.html>