<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Marty Seligman (learned helplessness theorist, <i>Learned Optimism,
Authentic Happiness</i>, 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. <br>
Lynn<br>
<br>
Alice Andrews wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid031e01c519ae$6d1984c0$1af9ae44@CallaStudios">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div>
<div>Hi Gerry,</div>
<div>Thanks for the note...</div>
<div>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!)</div>
<div>Thanks and cheers,</div>
<div>Alice</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hi Alice,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'll add the book to my list.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Gerry</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;">-----
Original Message -----
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial;"><b>From:</b>
<a title="andrewsa@newpaltz.edu" href="mailto:andrewsa@newpaltz.edu">Alice
Andrews</a> </div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="paleopsych@paleopsych.org"
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych
list</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 21, 2005 8:30 PM</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9,
Issue 20</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hi Gerry, </div>
<div>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!</div>
<div>Anyway, enough late-night babbling! It's a good book and might
answer your question...</div>
<div>All best!</div>
<div>Alice</div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;">-----
Original Message ----- </div>
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>From:</b>
<a title="waluk@earthlink.net" href="mailto:waluk@earthlink.net">G.
Reinhart-Waller</a> </div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>To:</b>
<a title="paleopsych@paleopsych.org"
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych
list</a> </div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Sent:</b>
Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20</div>
<div><br>
</div>
>> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative<br>
dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance,<br>
a threat to shared assumptions that define a group<br>
against another.<br>
<br>
This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience <br>
reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal <br>
or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you <br>
feel is apparent. This I need to hear!<br>
<br>
Gerry<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
paleopsych mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a></blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<hr>_______________________________________________<br>
paleopsych mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a><br>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<hr width="90%" size="4">
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>