An Introduction to Psychology
Man's real (provable, measurable) knowledge is quite extensive. Through astronomy and associated studies, he has explored his relationship with the universe. Through physics and chemistry he has studied the properties and relationships of the very matter of which the universe is constructed. Through biology and associated studies he has described the variety of flora and fauna on earth and learned the relationships between the various forms of living things. Microbiology is now mapping the human genome and is experimenting with genetic manipulation. Admittedly, man does not know everything yet, and may never, but for his physical relationships with the universe he has established systems of inquiry, methods of approach, and standards for knowledge acceptance.
He has not yet, but will or perish, do the same for his social relationships.
Each of man's physical sciences started as ideas (theories, philosophies), which were then endlessly challenged, studied and measured. Those parts of each which were proven true (or sufficiently true to be utilized) were immediately pressed into the service of man or saved as foundations for future application. Such knowledge builds civilizations. Each bit of knowledge so-gained is universal in the service of man. It crosses all national boundaries. It may be translated into many languages, but the meaning is the same. Unlike subjective 'knowledge' derived from ideology, religion, conjecture, imagination, speculation, elitism and just plain ignorance, this knowledge is the common denominator for all man, transcending racial, geographic, gender, ideological and ethnic boundaries.
There is no factual basis for modern social man. All modern cultures are based on ancient tribal hand-me-downs in various mixtures, liberally laced with self-serving more modern ideological ranting. Across the earth there are myriads of cultures. Each has a unique value system. Most have unique languages. All are certain in their beliefs (superstitions, ideologies, politics, religions). There are thousands in the US alone, from the elitist ideologue graduates of our liberal arts schools, to the Watts district in Los Angeles.
Psychology is the pivotal social science. Its shoulders support the social world of man. Its conclusions are the basis for all other social science investigations and applications. Any psychological error is compounded throughout civilization.
More and more, as man advances toward an objective culture, the beliefs of this science will determine its shape. Its beliefs are basic to education, for example. Educators learn from psychology how a child should be taught, what the child should be taught, and use its methods as a basis for judging the progress of the child. The education of the child determines the culture of his generation. Psychological beliefs are also an important basis for all other social studies. Teachers, journalists, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, and judges must all study psychology as the basis for all of their other studies. Every fault in psychological belief is then amplified in our social structure. All social studies require basic and factual knowledge about the nature (behavior) of man. These must come from the field of psychology. Anthropology, for example, studies the behaviors (culture) of various groups of people. Such studies require basis, otherwise the data has no reference and thus has no meaning. Such studies are only as accurate as the basis by which the study is conducted. If the psychological basis is in error, all information from the study may be worthless and, and worst yet, misleading.
Admittedly, there is need for conjecture, imagination, philosophy, creativity and hearsay in the field of psychology, in the same manner as in every other scientific field. Take physics, for example. There is a dream world in physics, way out there on the edge of comprehension, where scientists are searching for new knowledge. From this searching come the realities of tomorrow's world. To the engineer of today, however, in designing a product for the use of man now, that knowledge is not proven and is therefore not useful. It is not solid enough to incorporate into the service of man today. Only an idiot would take an experimental material, for example, and design it into service as mounts to secure a jet engine to an airframe. It would be an invitation for disaster. We daily institute unbased, untried and unproven teaching methods in our public schools, all based on modern psychological dream-world beliefs, a far greater disaster than a mere commercial air liner crash into the center of a busy city.
So the field of psychology needs to be modified. It needs to be divided much in the same manner as, for example, physics and mechanical engineering. The current field could remain, with all its cloud nine thinking, but as a no no land for the educators, politicians, journalists, etc., who apply psychological knowledge to the public. Across the campus, where the hard-to-please no-nonsense engineers are taught, a new psychology should be created. One which requires factual premises, short simple lines of logic, and frequent verification through measurement. These then would be the working psychologists on whom we could depend for factual psychological knowledge on which to build our culture and the system of education which sustains that culture.
The establishment of a psychological perspective, the viewpoint from which basic premises may be determined, must be approached with great care, since the perspective itself sets the specification against which all things are judged. There is no current evidence that man, or life itself for that matter, has any value with respect to the universe. Life happened. Man happened. Both are inconsequential with respect to the universe (at least it appears so at this time). So, - on what basis may 'normal' behavior be judged? It is especially nebulous with an adaptive creature like man, that is likely to shift to fit (or deny) any given set of expectations.
Judging man against a specification developed through philosophy using imagination, hearsay and conjecture, to fit preconceived ideological and political standards (as is current practice) is sheer lunacy. Judging man, a life form, against the form and process of the universe, an inanimate construction, is not likely to bear fruit either. Judging man, however, against the life system which formed him, is a more likely process.
The concept of behavior is normally associated with animal mobility. The biological mechanisms which give an animal mobility (biological motors) are actuated by other biological mechanisms (neural) which control the action. Mobile living creatures occupy all living levels of complexity from the single cell to the most complex of animals. The most primitive as well as the most advanced of modern animals still employ neural processes billions of years old. More advanced animals add on (as opposed to substitute for) new features. Modern man has an aggregation of neural processes, both new and ancient.
Even though totally contradicted by research into the structure, function, and evolutionary development of the human brain (see The Human Brain), modern psychology insists that the human brain is an excessively large intelligence container, one which through proper education may be arbitrarily molded to fit any cultural pattern. This archaic concept is thousands of years old. It has no truth in it. Since this is the view of psychologists, it is taught in the schools to future psychologists and educators (usually with embellishments on each successive cycle, see Dynamics). This cycling of opinion, conjecture, imagination and hearsay (psychological dogma) and refusal to maintain pace with current knowledge is reminiscent of the Flat Earth Society.
From a study of the physical structure of the brain, the mechanism of evolution, and comparative studies between various complexities of modern life, there appear to be 6 mechanisms in the human brain, all simultaneously operating at various degrees of influence. All 6 must be considered in analyzing human behavior:
1. Random Behavior
The most primitive neural organization is one that provides random behavior of the organism. The advantage gained in its development was that as the organism multiplies it tends to deplete local food supplies. Random movement allows the individual organism a better opportunity for finding food than by remaining in one location. Random movement later provided some protection from predation. This feature joins with later neural developments in man and is the default (untrained) system for best-fit behavior search when under emotional stress, often leading to confusion (and random behavior).
2. Sensor Driven Behavior
An early neural development is the sensor driven behavior. Some single-cell animals which depend on light for photo-synthesis have developed swimming motor devices which are directly driven by sensors toward light. In its simplest form the sensor element does not distinguish form. This neural method is in use in man where it is called reflex action. The jump from a loud sound, the blink of an eye from any nearby movement, the jerk of the hand away from something hot, are all examples of sensor driven movement. In the case of man, however, due to other neural developments, the sensor driven behavior may be modified by training and, in most cases, may be consciously controlled.
3. Neural Pattern Driven Behavior
The most primitive cognitive neural function is neural pattern driven behavior. A development by evolution from sensor driven behavior, the sensor developed the ability to distinguish form and a form pattern was genetically provided against which sensed forms may be judged. Behavior then resulted from the degree of match between the form sensed and that in biologically provided fixed memory. The sensed form, the fixed form, the comparison mechanism, and the behavior judging mechanism were developed in parallel. This system may become quite complex.
4. Memory Pattern Driven Behavior
The first adaptive cognitive neural function to be developed by evolution was the memory pattern driven behavior. A new feature was added to the neural pattern driven behavior, a memory pattern representing prior experience was retained long enough to allow comparison with a currently sensed pattern. This mechanism was a development from the need to determine the motion of the object of interest and first existed as simply the comparison of one scene with the next in order to not only identify the object but to determine its relative movement. By adapting to longer term memory, current patterns and/or genetically supplied patterns could be compared and decisions made (comparison error signals). At this cognitive level, current sensory information is converted to symbolic form, compared with both long and short memory and with genetic memory. The mechanism is still a reactive one, since the motor is driven by summed error signals.
5. Imagined Pattern Driven Behavior
The next step was the big one in cognitive development, the ability to modify memory patterns for evaluation. The predator sees his prey enter cover, develops several possible scenes depicting the prey's exit, selects the most likely and acts. Experience provides the most likely scene to occur. The predator, in effect, looks into the future based on current conditions and prior experience. The prey, possessing the same ability, looks back at the predator, knows his dangers and his limitations, and selects the most likely path to escape.
In its elemental form, this process is very fast. It simulates intelligence. It is not. It is a highly developed form of reaction. The mechanisms described are not entities. Each evolved over the other in every sensory and motor area in the brain and consists of tens of thousands of individual neural circuits. All are extensively interconnected and operate simultaneously in parallel.
All of the behavioral drives described above are used simultaneously, weighted, and combined instinctively (summed in parallel by genetically determined neural mechanisms). We call the collective effect of these mechanisms 'intuition' and it is highly satisfactory in behavioral situations where prior training may be applied (supplying knowledge in depth). These mechanisms constitute the backbone of man's 'intelligence' and supply high speed intellectual decisions for day to day living with a high degree of accuracy. The brain is a highly effective tool for controlling an automobile or hunting leopards.
Unfortunately, since it was developed for immediate behavior, and is sufficiently fast to allow re-evaluation and correction while the behavior is in progress, this collective mechanism lacks the necessary precision for many very important applications, especially if the decisions have far-reaching or widespread consequences, or extend into the future for any appreciable period of time. It is also unable to comprehend more than a few parameters without conscious aid.
6. Conscious Behavioral Selection and Planning
The need for a complex and adaptable culture caused the evolutionary selection process to develop neural mechanisms which provide a procedure for sequential intuitive evaluation for the determination of proper behavior. We call this process 'consciousness'. Present to a lessor degree in all of the higher animals, it has, arguably, peaked in man. Without immediate need for behavior, the animal consciously considers several possible scenarios. These may then be executed immediately or stored in memory for later usage. From this process came the procedure we call 'planning'. The instinctive portion of man is modified by this process in order to establish behavior more closely tailored to the needs of the particular occasion than can be provided by intuition alone. What would have been a particular action by intuition is modified after conscious consideration of its effects. The control of instinct through conscious deliberation, enhancing some, curtailing others, is called 'self-discipline' and is a distinguishing behavioral feature of the human.
Although much slower than intuition, this conscious effort produces far more accurate behavioral decisions. This process, a conscious sequencing of the intuitive (reactive, instinctive) mind with varying parameters followed by best-fit selection, is commonly referred to as reasoning. This process is erroneously called 'intelligent'. It is not. Intelligence requires far more than reasoning, although reasoning is certainly essential.
Unfortunately, human consciousness developed during a long period (4 million years) of living in small groups (tribes) under severe environmental stress. Both conditions are changed drastically in modern times, tribes became huge and the inventiveness of the human resulted in much lower evolutionary environmental stress. The result is a severe misfit between instinct and environment. In ancient times, survival required the utmost from each individual in the tribe. Most behavior was the the result of immediate need. Communications between individuals consisted of passing information which was largely timely and urgent. The human instinct developed to believe, to accept that information, and to act on it. The human is instinctively trusting and naive. He will tend to believe anything he is taught. Larger groups brought power and control problems. Truth was not as important as maintaining control. Religions were the answer then, ideology, politics, and intellectual elitism is the answer now. Sophistry now holds sway even in our courts of justice. Harmony among people was sought by most of the old religious dogmas, total control of thought and behavior is sought by the new religion (intellectual elitist dogma).
TRAINING AND EDUCATION
The human receives all knowledge through his senses. The senses are a portion of the neural system. This information is processed through his neural mechanisms. His interpretation of each bit of knowledge received is contingent on his summation of prior knowledge and its bit by bit interpretation. His immediate behavior is the result of this process.
The motor system in the human body is composed of genetically specified, neurally controlled motors (muscles). These devices may be improved in strength and speed through exercise (repetition). Repetition of muscle movement results in physical change in the muscles. The muscles enlarge and become quicker in response. Muscles will become weaker and slower in response if not exercised.
The neural system in the human body is composed of genetically specified sensor and motor control elements. Distributed in these control elements are neural circuits which provide sensor analysis, knowledge processing and memory. These devices may be improved in strength and speed through exercise (repetition). Repetition of a neural function results in physical change in the neural circuitry. The neural circuits enlarge and become quicker in response. Neural circuitry will shrink if allowed to, or trained to, become dormant.
The basic (intuitive) human mental mechanism is genetically specified. Each neural function (instinct or decision mechanism) may be strengthened through exercise (repetition). If a neural function is denied exercise, it will, to a degree, atrophy. A neural function may no more be changed in function than one can demand that the biceps wiggle the right big toe, but its ability to effect behavior may be modified through exercise or the lack thereof.
Since the reasoning neural functions are genetically fixed, the only behavior modifications that may be made externally is through: education, supplying the individual with knowledge on which his reasoning functions may depend, and through enforced cultural rules. Since the variations in the human behavioral instincts are diverse, and becoming more so daily, the restrictions of societal living appear quite severe to many and will to even a higher percentage with time.
Within genetically specified limits, the human body strength and agility are a function of usage (exercise, repetition). Mistreat the human body with poor food and poor care and no amount of exercise will be of benefit.
Within genetically specified limits, the human mental strength and agility are a function of usage (exercise, repetition). Mistreat the human mind with fiction, dogma, sophistry, ideology, spirituality, and all other forms of baseless 'knowledge' and no amount of intellectual exercise will provide optimum behavior.
A mechanism exists in the human brain which coordinates the commands from the central neural system to the motor systems. It is trained through the repetition of a given movement command. Once trained it becomes a part of the intuitive reaction system.
A mechanism exists in the human brain which coordinates the flow of information processing in the central neural system. It is trained through the repetition of a desired process. Once trained, the new process becomes a part of the intuitive reaction system and no longer requires conscious management.
NEURAL MECHANISM VARIATION
On dispelling the myth of the equality of man.
The basis for socialism (the major ingredient in the ideology of the intellectual elite) is that the individuals within the species are equal and therefore should reap identical rewards regardless of the individual's production for the community. It assumes that if man is given a uniform culture and the education to support it, all will have identical culturally responsible behavior. Modern psychology supports this philosophy. This is a gross error.
There is wide variation in human physical appearance. Alternative alleles offer endless combinations of skin color and texture, height weight, hair and eye color, musculature, etc. In a like manner, for the same reason and to the same degree, there are wide variations in neural structure. Instinctive parental love, for example, ranges from complete devotion to shocking cruelty, even murder. Reasoning ability ranges from the imbecile to the genius. Sociability ranges from the serial murderer to the political charmer. This variation (diversity) is increasing due to the interference by man in the evolution process. For more on this see The Degeneration of Man
All variations in individual behavior are to be expected, and for that reason must be allowed for in the cultural rule set. Any behavior by the individual that is detrimental to the survival of the community (and the species) is not acceptable to the community. Since the survivability of a species is determined by the survivability of the individuals within that species, then behavior detrimental to the survival of the individual is also not acceptable.
In the interest of a peaceful and just society, other behavioral rules may also be imposed. Cultural rules may become quite restrictive of individual behavior since they may be adverse to the normal social drives of all. To the extent that these rules contribute to the survival of the species (and the individual), they meet the requirements for behavioral acceptability, and should be enforced. Any societal rule which has no detractor, or which is otherwise not enforced, are null rules and should be eliminated.
When considering the wide variation in behavioral drives, the behavior of the individual must be a matter of training, not therapy or education. The rules should be listed and strictly enforced. Training is composed of repetition (exercise), reward, and punishment. Those individuals with behavior drives near the center of the bell curve, as they acquire factual knowledge, will find that proper behavior becomes more and more intuitive, no longer requiring enforcement, reward or punishment. Since many others will still rebel, even though knowing better, the cultural rules must still be strictly enforced. Since these are knowledgeable rebels, further education will not be effective and only punishment can control their action.
There are no two identical individuals and the variation is wide. Since cultural rules must fit the needs of the community, then all must follow the same rules, whether the rules 'fit' the individual or not.
IS THE HUMAN INTELLIGENT?
Man has studied the evolutionary process by which he was formed, and has found it to be primitive, unpredictable and brutal, without intelligence, planning or goal. Both his physical and mental structures are poorly engineered, suffering frequent malfunction, poor and erratic performance and early wear out. Man has learned through experience that no functional apparatus is satisfactory which has not been deliberately designed for its intended function. The more complex the apparatus and its function, the more needed is the engineering. As man progresses into the study of the genetics of man and the process by which man was formed, it becomes more and more apparent that man, far from being a wondrous creature, is a makeshift creature at best, one which is now archaic and a misfit in a world suddenly crowded and technically complex. The wonder is that he is able to function at all. So man will study and tinker as knowledge is gained, then he will begin to make serious changes. It is now certain, if he survives long enough, that man will engineer his own replacement, and eventually the entire life system.
The human is quite proud, and justifiably so, of his technological accomplishments. He looks at the chimp, his nearest relative, and finds him dim-witted and with deplorable social habits. All other animals fall even farther behind. Man then becomes arrogant as he surveys the difference between himself and all others. This is an arrogance that is not justified. Man is intelligent only when compared with the others. As a matter of fact he is quite error prone, and self delusional.
The human neural system began its development when the first hominid appeared (the ape that walked). That was about 4 million years ago. His instinctive neural system at that time was quite similar to all of the other more advanced animals of that time. During the next 2 million years, the hominid developed as a herd herbivore. Almost all of the tribal social instincts were developed during this period. With the invention of tools and fire, about 2 million years ago, the human shifted from the herd herbivore to the hunter/gatherer tribe form of social structure. It was successful. The population began growing. Competition developed between tribes for territory. Relationship between tribes became militant. The hunter/warrior tribal system began forming.
The neural system of modern man is honed for the hunter/warrior mode of living. The need was for fast decisions while under stress. Speed was more important than accuracy. Survival depended on it. The human neural system is primarily a parallel mode reactive decision system, one ideal for controlling an automobile, hunting tigers, or designing a trap for the tribesman next door.
The conscious thought system makes iterative use of the same mechanism. It was designed for relationships within the tribe and waging a defensive posture against territorial encroachment. The human mind was not developed for tribes with memberships in the millions, for urban (ant hill) living, for mixing of cultures, for being ruled by strangers of another tribe, for high-technology living, etc.
The truth of the matter is that the function of the human brain, the mechanism which accepts and processes knowledge received through the senses, then provides behavior appropriate to the situation, is determined by a genome formed by chaos squeezed through a mindless random variable filter. Evolution is a process which is unplanned and without goals or standards. As is to be expected with any complex mechanism which was built with no engineering, our genome is a pile of junk. Worse still, man, having eliminated the filter portion of the evolution mechanism, is now subject to the accumulation of all mutations not immediately fatal. Since the neural system is more complex than the balance of the body, it receives a major share of these mutations. Not only is the thinking apparatus fixed by a genetic code designed by an idiot, that code is now wandering all over the map, and deteriorating all the while.
In the lottery of being born with a genome of a particular configuration, the individual human may be an imbecile or a genius, or anywhere in between. Since the reasoning apparatus is a fixed mechanism, its change in capability with experience is quite small. Only the behavior of the individual changes, in response to the quality and quantity of the knowledge absorbed as processed by the fixed intellectual quality of the individual.
The intelligence of man, therefore, is very questionable. One only needs to read the front page of a newspaper a few days to understand that. It only appears wonderful to us because there is nothing better around. Instead of boasting about superiority, man should be humble and careful, knowing that his every thought is suspect.
Since formal education began, thousands of years ago, it has been a doctrine among the intellectual elite that human thought can create knowledge. Starting with conjecture as a basis, our academia has diligently added tons of dogma to man's knowledge base each year, and the rate is increasing rapidly. Quoting each other, based on academic achievement of the expounder rather than proof of the idea expounded, every unsubstantiated thought is then expanded and communicated.
MALE FEMALE INTERCHANGEABILITY
Modern psychology, in keeping with the ideology of the intellectual elite, expresses the belief that man and woman are interchangeable. They advocate that the individual is the primary element of human culture.
There is considerable genetic difference between the human male and female. Both carry two sets of chromosomes in each cell of their bodies. One chromosome in one of the two sets in the male genome differs considerably from that in the female. Male features, the differences from the female which make the male unique, are contained in the Y chromosome and those features are handed down from father to son. No such uniquely female features exist in the human nuclear DNA.
There is a genetic divergence between the male and female human. The divergence is as great as that between some closely related species. This divergence developed over an extremely long time, perhaps a hundred times the period required for the human to develop from the first ape that walked. A difference in genetic code always indicates a difference in form and function. The human neural system is far more complex than the human physical structure. It is unreasonable to believe that this genetic difference exists only in external form and size. Although there may be many points of similarity, the role of the male is different from that of the female.
Dimorphism in a species, only one of the results of the differing male and female genomes, indicates a differing role in the male and female. One needs only to consider the 4 million year history of man and study modern primitive tribes to understand that the primary role of the male has been defense of the family and provision of the physical needs of the family, while the primary role of the female has been to bear and care for the children in the family.
The human child requires many years of family nurture in its development. The bonded pair as parents is the traditional human way to gain this stable development period. The traditional basic element of human culture is, therefore, the bonded pair, not the individual. Not so, say modern psychologists, the state is the ultimate parent. It, therefore, has the final responsibility, thus relieving the need for a two-parent system and allowing the individual to be the basic element of society.
This creates great stress in the human, since it is contradictory to the instincts. The feminization of the male and the masculinization of the female is a sure sign of the degeneration of the human, in both physical appearance and instinct.
WASTED BRAIN POWER
Although driven by his instincts, the action taken by (behavior of) any animal is always a result of reasoning (problem analysis and decision making). Even the most elemental animal chooses between alternatives. Fight or flight is such a basic decision, often deciding the fate of the animal. The male wolf lusts for the mate of the leader, leading to the choice of sex followed by a sound thrashing or abstinence. The experienced hunting dog, reaching the fork in the trail where his two preys went separate ways, will strike out across the middle away from both trails, knowing full well they will come back together. Alternative reasoned decisions are not unique to man. Only the scope and complexity is different. Even that is not as wide a difference as man in his arrogance would lead you to believe.
The ability to reason existed in our ancestors long before the development of the modern brain. The modern brain developed increased memory, adding extensive symbolic storage and communicating ability. More complex problems could now be visualized, analyzed and then solved. Scenarios could be symbolically created in the mind and analyzed for proper action. Larger and more complex procedures could be developed and retained. Man no longer needed to rely on direct experience to learn, he could now store knowledge from others for possible future needs. The reasoning mechanism, tested through millions of years, remained the same. It was there long before this additional memory developed. It still reasons as it did in ancient times, considering one factor at a time. It is a little slower in man than most other animals in some ways, especially when the algorithm is new or complicated.
Evolution is not a planned process. It is a random process, one that produces both good and bad. Man, as he exists today, was never planned to be thus. Mutations occur randomly, and are accepted into the gene pool as permanent residents if they improve the creature's ability to survive long enough to see his grandchildren. Man is composed of a set of such mutations which have survived the environment to this day. Other surviving creatures are composed of a different set which also survived. The fact of survival does not even hint at perfection, in any characteristic.
In the case of the bird, for example, there is no perfect wing. Different wings fit different environmental conditions, but even within a given environmental niche, no wing is perfect. Mutations do not seek perfection in the wing, they provide random variations in the wing. The environment kills the recipients of variations which do not fit. Those which live are not perfect, they only survived. Perhaps, in the long run, the very idea of a wing is foolishness. We only know that so far it has survived, if teamed up with the proper set of other mechanical characteristics (a perfect swallow wing would be a failure if attached to a fish).
The same observations and logic apply to the human brain.
Symbolic storage and reasoning were not the intent of evolution when changes were made to the brain. Evolution has no intent. Certain random changes in the brain resulted in better survivability, for whatever reason. Man is under an entirely different environment now. Those same characteristics which helped in his survival then may be deadly now. Time will tell.
On the other hand, it is very unlikely that these new features and additions were utilized to their fullest by the ancients. Handing this brain to a primitive who had no concept of its function or proper operation may have still helped in its survival, but most of its potential was not realized, and is not to this day.
Perhaps that is why the brain grew so large and became so capable, far larger than needed by the ancients, perhaps larger than we can make proper use of even today. Each time it grew, the ancient made use of, perhaps, a few percent of the change, but even that usage improved survivability. What did he do with the balance? He probably did the same thing with it that the bureaucrats, psychologists, politicians, psychiatrists, educators, academics and social engineers of today do, sit around dreaming up a bunch of mental garbage to fill the new space. The same imagination that can be used to make up a working snare to catch the evening meal, can also be used in useless musing building huge castles in the air. The ratio between the two would depend a great deal on how hungry the thinker was at the time. Times were tough then, obtaining food prevailed. Things are different now.
There is little chance that we will overtax the brain through education and requiring the individual to make use of it in a way meaningful to himself and the community. There is a big chance that if we do not maintain a good flow of information (real knowledge, not dogma) through each individual's brain, and insure that he has the basis and tools for meaningful decisions, that his decisions will be in error and thereby harmful to the individual and his community.
Every individual is capable of far more than we know. We must encourage everyone to establish idealistic and lofty goals early in life.
WHAT DOES THE HUMAN SEEK?
A culture is the summation of the individual behaviors within a given group. All species have cultures. Each has a specific pattern of behavior. These patterns were designed through trial and error to enhance species survival. Most species of animals have cultures which are largely instinctive. The behavioral inclinations (instincts) of the individual are the driving force behind all cultural behavior. Such was ramidus, our ancestor, the walking ape. The more intellectual the species, the more complex the culture and the more behavior (culture) will vary from group to group.
All individual cultural decisions are colored by the individual's particular set of instincts, and no two people are alike. Each tries to optimize his social choices to gain the most personal benefit (satisfaction of his set of instincts). Even parental love, probably the most unselfish instinct, requires some reciprocity. It is difficult to love a child who gives only hate in return. Helping a stranger, only to have him spit in return, turns generosity (a very strong instinct) into fury (an even stronger instinct). Most cultural decisions made by man and believed by him to be objective, are not. They are his sly instincts leading him to the decision.
All individual animals, including man, seek what they perceive as their essentials of life.
They do not seek the effort, pain, self-sacrifice, self-discipline and problems they must endure in order to obtain these essentials, they seek these essentials themselves. Many will endure, for the most part, in order to reach their goals, but they will not deliberately take a more difficult course than is absolutely necessary.
This is why any animal, including man, will accept charity, even if the resulting life is worse as a result. Feed any wild animal, one perfectly capable of doing well on his own, and it becomes enslaved. Cut the charity gradually with time and the animal will suffer to the edge of starvation before cutting the ties in desperation. Proper charity feeds the cripple, sick and old, not the able. Charity is a disservice to the capable.
This characteristic has resulted in a peculiarity in human communication. What man says he likes, is not what he usually will do if given the opportunity. Man never did like contradicting his instincts. Since the beginning, he has usually done all the things he was supposed to do, and stayed away from the things he shouldn't do, but it was always reluctantly. Man is a competitive animal, the very best that evolution devised, and his goal has always been to win (survive). He complains continually about what he is doing, and dreams of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Ask any one of them, from ramidus to modern man, what he really would like, and the answer would be about the same: "Give me a beach, let the booze flow, plenty of sex, and no responsibilities. It would be heaven not to worry about struggling to make a living, trying to please a spouse or boss, paying all those taxes and worrying about my old age." In the case of ramidus, it would be lions instead of taxes, and none of them ever got old.
Such a dream is enticing. Most humans, if given the opportunity, would never budge off that beach. In fact, most would settle for less than a beach and also agree to cheap booze. There are many, however, who would get bored after a couple of weeks and start looking around for a mountain to climb. These latter ones are the builders and producers, if allowed. If not culturally allowed for and guided they will tend to plunder that same culture.
Socialism is the mortal enemy of any constructive and meaningful society, since it promises the beach, booze and sex to everyone. It lies when it does so, since socialism is self-bankrupting. When socialism is on the verge of collapse, communism then solves the problem through dictatorship. Then its back to work, even harder, and with lower return. This time with a gun at the head.
The evolution of man is an undeniable picture of a creature evolved to withstand great hardship. His very survival over a 4 million year development period depended on his ability to intellectually control his instincts and struggle with all his might. Even if Utopia should be achievable, man would become lazy and fat, his evolution would enter a degenerative nose-dive, his productivity would approach zero and he would become insatiable in his desires for pleasure. What man seeks is what he wants, and is not at all what he needs.
Modern psychology encourages the weaknesses in man. Fees are fatter if the advice is to avoid stress, take it easy, go to ball games, take this 'getaway from it all' pill, take a lot of vacations, enjoy a lot of sex, and in general promote the idea of 'thank God its Friday'. This advice fits what man wants. This coddling and pampering is the exact opposite of what man needs. He needs a dutch uncle not a doting aunt. The advice he should be receiving is: 'get involved in life', stress is a natural part of living, avoid frivolous pursuits, establish lofty goals then try your best to meet them, etc..
Take away the struggle, that which created man, and the result is a worthless, and often destructive, bum. He becomes no more than a garbage can in which to toss assets better utilized elsewhere. Subsidize any animal, and the same thing happens. So we have this very human paradox. Man struggles to satisfy his instincts, but he must control them if he is to contribute to his society (a struggle formerly required to survive) and his own health and well being. He is at his most noble when under stress. Contrary to psychological dogma, stress is a natural condition for man. It has been a part of his life since the beginning.
Man struggles for utopia, the worst possible thing he can have. He finds his life in the struggle, that which he strives to avoid.
The intellectual additions to the instincts of our species are the result of evolution. The development of these intellectual additions provides a variability in behavior through intellectual control of the instincts. This variability enhances survival. Since this new memory is capable of not only storing past experience, but of procedures as well, even imaginative alternative actions can be evaluated. A particular behavior may then be patterned to optimize the action taken. In some cases, the intellect may even forbid the execution of a particular instinctive drive. It is this necessary intellectual control of the instincts which makes a culture successful. This intellectual control is a learned function and is called self-discipline. An intellectual animal is one that uses intellectual control (self-discipline) to over-ride less desirable instinctive behavior.
All social instincts, from mother love to tribal cooperation, are diverging rapidly and are degenerating at a rapid rate. Random mutations spare no instinct and nature is no longer allowed to cleanse the gene pool. Many of man's instincts became obsolete and counter-productive when his social environment changed. Others have since become damaging to society as the result of degeneration. There is little that we can do at the present time to correct the source of these problems, but we can identify them and start working toward minimizing their effect.
Unfortunately, modern psychology, which is far more concerned with making people feel good than with establishing a basis for a best-fit society for man, embraces many of the troublesome areas in instincts and actually encourages an intensification. One of the sacred cows of psychology is sex.
In the case of the traditional family over the last 4 million years, the sex drive was shaped and controlled by custom (culture) to insure the family unit, even now considered the most reliable way to raise children. The female controlled sexual activity and used it as a tool to bond the male to her and her family. From him she acquired protection and food gathering, especially needed during pregnancy and while caring for the very young.
In pursuing its ideology, modern intellectual elitism uses psychology as a means of authority to teach the pursuit of sex as the end product. One might say that the human species is being taught to be groin driven.
The unrestrained human, to put it mildly, is sexually bizarre. The physical sex that nature developed in the human, heterosexual penis-vagina sex, is lost in the wilderness. Modern heterosexual couples regularly engage in penis-oral and oral-vaginal sex, often at the same time. Then there is penis-anal, and even oral-anal sex. Masturbation is common. A mixture of masturbation and one of the other forms of sex is also common. Although some of the other animals sniff around and play various sexual arousal games, none use any of the other practices as a substitute for penis-vagina sex. Most men claim to prefer penis-oral sex, a practice that has nothing to do at all with procreation. Rare would be the stallion that mounted the wrong end of the mare.
It doesn't end there. About 10% of the human population is homosexual and bisexual. Describing the antics of this group would take a couple of pages. The infamous bath houses, sex clubs and sadomasochist dungeons of San Francisco house unbelievable permutations and combinations of every possible sex act.
Then there are the child molesters, rapists, and murder-rapists. A large portion of homosexual men prefer very young boys, even babies. Worse yet is the serial killer who obtains sexual pleasure from murder.
Placing a bunch of same-sex animals of the same species in the same pen will bring a variety of responses. If they are male and territorial, they will usually fight. If not, such as most grazing animals, they will mill around but get along. Once in a while, a male will raise up on another in mock sexual activity, but it's quickly terminated. Pen up a bunch of same-sex humans and the sexual activity will hardly slow. A South African male prison recently started issuing free condoms to all of its inmates in an attempt to slow down the spread of HIV. Any old hole in a storm as the old saying goes.
Then from a social standpoint, three or more in a bed is the latest teen-age rage and sexual promiscuity of married couples with children is on the rise.
In the animal kingdom (some primates excepted), sex for any other reason than procreation is rare. Sex for that reason among humans is rare.
If man has value above the other animals (or plain dirt for that matter), it lies not in his groin but in his brain. If the groin is to prevail, there is no need for a culture of any sort. Eat, drink and make Mary for tomorrow we become extinct. Time was it took brain power for a man to succeed well enough to satisfy his groin. Modern sexual freedom has removed that requirement. Many men don't strive anymore, either. One of his biggest goals was suddenly made free and easy. Where wooing was the game, it is now self defense.
What are the repercussions of promiscuity? Read any newspaper. Divorce rates are sky-rocketing. Courts are filled with cases arguing over child responsibility. Most child abuse cases involve step-parents or live-in lovers. Child murder and abandonment are no longer rare occurrences. Most family murders are the result of sexual promiscuity.
Sex is not hygienic. It would be hard to imagine any activity so adept at the transport of disease from one person to another. Bodily fluids are freely exchanged with activity that rubs the skin and membranes thin. It would also be difficult to find any disease that could not be transferred in this manner.
But the major loss to humanity is the time spent in pursuing and performing sex. With almost everything the human does, the eventual goal is almost always sex. Huge industries such as cosmetics, clothing, jewelry, cruises, and hotels provide direct services for the sex trade. Luxury items such as expensive automobiles, condos on the beach, lavish restaurants are used by many to promote their sexual activity. Aphrodisiacs (Viagra is a huge success in the drug field) are big business in much of the world, leading in one case to the near extinction of another species.
Sexual pleasure has been shown to be chemical in nature. Sexual activity increases the chemical flow. Sex is, therefore, addictive. Modern psychology encourages this addiction.
To put it bluntly, sex as practiced by the modern human, is a useless, costly, troublesome, wasteful, and disease ridden bestial practice with no redeeming feature. It should be discouraged and minimized. When love became synonymous with lust, sex became a liability.
READER'S COMMENT: Any educated psychologist would laugh at your pitiful and obviously limited understanding of the profession. Your simpleton viewpoints are incredible.
AUTHOR'S REPLY: Exactly! Dogma saturated groups are extremely sensitive to criticism. Tribal lore must be protected. The flat earth society still lives, defensively. Creationism is defended by the spiritual, with anger and moral indignation. Astrologists defend their art. Question any baseless PC precept and receive scorn and anger. Republicans and Democrats get downright vicious with each other, though their differences in dogma dumped in the eye would cause no irritation whatsoever. The liberal angrily rejects scientific DNA proof that the fetus is a human and a separate and distinct human being from the mother. The field of law angrily defends an adversarial system of law even though it demands that both sides of any dispute seek unfair advantage over the other. The journalist believes it a moral duty to angrily defend the right to modify the news to fit the tribal (PC) ideology, truth be damned.
All 3 of these are false, as are most of the other postulated features necessary for the ideology. Any study of the evolution and development of the human will show that: (1) the human is naturally intuitive (reactive, instinctive) using memory as an element in the behavioral decision. The human can only emulate intelligence when he consciously and deliberately follows a strictly defined intellectual process, one that he normally does not follow, (2) the human does not adapt (change in structure, neural or otherwise) to cope with an environmental problem, he is instead widely capable of coping. He is capable rather than adaptable. This allows the human to survive under cultures which are not optimum for his survival. Such cultures are not excusable. Only an intellectual culture, one based on real knowledge, can optimally fit the intellectual human, (3) the human is naturally sociable but that sociability is instinctive, rigidly structured and highly variable. A part of the human sociability, as one example among many, is competition. This instinct can lead to violence if such violence is allowed. It can be controlled through training (enforced edict), but since it is an instinct it can not be educated (although the human may be educated about it thereby supplying additional memory input to the decision mechanisms)..
If one should make a list of human characteristics postulated as the basis for the campus elitist ideology, then should do the same for the characteristics postulated by the current field of psychology, they would be identical. The campus ideology could not otherwise survive. The question arises: "Are either of these scientific (real knowledge that may be certified through demonstration or measurement)?" To my knowledge, neither group has ever even made such a list for use as the basis for their opinions, much less made any effort to prove the truthfulness of each statement in such a list. On what basis does either believe they know what the true characteristics of the human are? As far as I can tell, each tribe (one is a tribe within the other) relies totally on conjecture, imagination, introspection, 'common sense', and hearsay (conjecture, imagination and introspection by Marx, Freud, Kant, Nietsche, etc.).
Modern psychology is a philosophy rather than a science, one utilizing an ideology as a standard. The basis for this philosophy predates modern real knowledge and is counter to that knowledge. It is based on questionable premises. It is archaic. Those who defend this obsolete 'science' are reactionary.
No study can be more accurate than the premises used in its design. If those premises are guesswork, the data from the study is no better, no matter how extensive the data is, how accurately the data was taken, or how brilliantly it was analyzed. As a vastly simplified analogy, consider the case of the engineer who is handed the task of analyzing a particular automobile which he believes to be a sports racing car but which is actually a pickup truck. He sets about testing the acceleration, lateral tracking, front/rear weight balance, roll stiffness, high speed braking, and the reliability of the engine under maximum power. Although all of these factors may be measured well on a pickup truck, none of them particularly fit. His tests may be well designed, valid, accurate and thorough, but his analysis, no matter how intelligent, will not truly describe the capability of the pickup truck. The truck was designed to reliably carry loads in an adverse environment, at far less than racing speeds.
Evolution is a senseless process, one without goal or purpose. It did not set out to develop a highly sociable, intelligent and god-like creative creature. The process is mercilessly reactive, it merely kills anything that lacks the ability to survive. The human is a wonderfully tough and capable pickup truck, an instinctive, tenacious, opportunistic, work-horse with a capable memory that is greatly utilized. It is the result of millions of years of brutal adaptation, one requiring the death and suffering of millions of individuals.
Yes, there are groups of psychologists who are now studying the effects of genetics. Some are studying the development of the human, seeking social factors which effect its behavior. Some are even studying the social habits of our close animal relatives, for possible application. Almost without exception, though, they are all working on the sports racing car theory, trying to see why this pickup truck fails to handle or brake well and is so terribly slow.
Human behavior is not just effected by genetics and the evolutionary development of the human - it is entirely the product of those two factors. Yes, a particular individual behavior can be modified by edict and education, but even that ability to be modified is a function of the genetics of the individual and the developmental history of the species. It is all genetics - and the current genetic structure was determined by the evolutionary history peculiar to the human.
The IQ of an individual, even with all its arguments, is a basic element in human behavior. An example of the direct relationship between the genetic configuration of an individual human and its behavior, a tiny sliver from the tip of an iceberg soon to be explored in its entirety, appeared in 'Scientific American', Jan 1998, p30: