--Science of lust--

*good stuff from another NOVA documentary*

Men will act out in 'louder' mannerisms when attractive women are about. This is known as 'peacocking'.

Men also demonstrate more artistic creativity after coming into interactions with attractive women.

Women will demonstrate more kind actions when attractive men are about.

Men are designed to be lustful more often and get lustful easier so as to be more evolutionarily successful. Women tend to take longer and are less inclined to be lustful because the costs of choosing a wrong mate would be higher. 

Being in the presence of an attractive woman hikes the testosterone levels in men whether or not they consider her a prospective mate.

Some people are hypoactive sexually and often describe themselves as asexual. Others are hyperactive sexually. They have a mutation on a gene which controls dopamine.

People when primed to think about love rather than lust were more inclined to push away relationship alternatives and stay faithful. Love is an evolutionary design to get us to attract and be attracted and mate. Love on the other hand enables us to stay together to raise offspring.

The "warrior" gene

The "warrior" gene can be found in 1/3 of men but it does not necessarily make them more violent. Mice with the "warrior" gene (a dysfunctional version of the MAO-A gene, a neuro-gene) bite and scratch more.

How about people? Such people have less grey matter in the communication between their prefrontal cortex and their amygdala and more stimulation in their amygdala (the part of the brain which alerts us to danger). But nurture also plays a big part in whether such people exhibit aggressive behaviour.

People with Intermittent Explosive Disorder perceive danger when there may not be any. But do people with IED have the "warrior" gene? NO!

A combination of factors (mainly environment) determines whether someone will have IED. Therefore this is good news: we may not be able to change our genes but we definitely can change our environment.

"wear white"?

Another logical fallacy to point out on the same issue from this article

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/23/singapore-christians-and-muslims-join-forces-to-protest-against-gay-rights/

Another logical fallacy to point out on the same issue from this article.

“Return to Fitrah”, meaning innocence or nature -> "Naturalistic fallacy" OR "Appeal to nature fallacy" which logic is as follows: "...the assumption that because some quality or combination of qualities invariably and necessarily accompanies the quality of goodness, or is invariably and necessarily accompanied by it, or both, this quality or combination of qualities is identical with goodness. If, for example, it is believed that whatever is pleasant is and must be good, or that whatever is good is and must be pleasant, or both, it is committing the naturalistic fallacy to infer from this that goodness and pleasantness are one and the same quality. The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them."

Simply put, whether something is natural or not has no fixed bearing on its goodness. Many natural things are harmful to us. Many unnatural (synthetic) things are good for us.

But if you wish to defend the logic of this slogan based on the term "innocence" as per religious understanding, then that is acceptable within the religious rationality of the community (if the meaning of the term "innocence" is agreed upon within the religious community).

Correct me if I am wrong but the religious meaning of "innocence" here points to the "original goodness"/ spiritual purity of an individual as how God created man (as according to the respective creation narrative mentioned) thus pointing to the problem of "nature VS nurture".

We cannot yet judge (from a non-religious point of view) the "nature vs nurture" argument in relation to one's sexual orientation as we just have not arrived at any conclusive evidence for either side of the argument yet. Therefore we should not then come a hasty judgement and continue to work to find the true answers as per critical thinking and then collectively come to a solution about the issue as per democratic principles.

Now I know some of my religious friends may take offence to this but a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy regardless of whichever individual of whatever faith used it. So I hope you see past any affiliations and just treat it as an issue of critical thought and logic.

Religion "still helps shape views on morality"....YUCKS

I think articles like this are misleading and counter-effective, 

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/religion-still-helps-shape-views-morality

Honestly with regard to such nebulous issues like morality, is it really helpful to poll people based on vague questions like "Is it wrong?". 

Then again, if we were to keep the analysis of certain actions and the morality of these actions in vague emotivist labels like "wrong" then yes, you will get an emotive response to a moral issue and no further thought/reflection on the part of the respondent. The publication of such polls does not help breed moral actions...this instead reinforces a "react first, do not reflect" and then justify one's stand with being in the "moral majority" sequence.

Instead, we need to educate people that "right" and "wrong" labels are evolutionary, social and historical constructs as responses to environmental concerns. Only then can we move beyond 'right" and "wrong" and advance towards "better" and possibly even "best".

So many of our countrymen are stranded in the foggy world of cultural morality and understand themselves to being morally opposed to others when in reality, our moral sense are much closer than what we assume (see "the trolley problem" and how people of various faith react to it). This is because they have had no formal exposure to ethics (moral philosophy) and also lack knowledge on how cutting edge research (in neuroscience and animal behavioural studies) for example is enriching our understanding in this field.

And also, we will not proceed far as a critical thinking society if we do not allow for free constructive criticism (backed with evidence) about all set of beliefs/values. Labelling any set of beliefs/values as sacred and unquestionable does not allow for genuine critical thinking to flourish.

Lastly I lament the constant need for the maintenance of religious and racial harmony which comes from ignorant tribalism that a society founded on critical thinking and science (for example, see iGENEA: DNA Gennealogy research) will demolish. If only more people knew more science and allowed for their constructs to be destroyed with the clarity of science and critical thinking....

Nova's documentary on 'what animals are thinking'

Just finished watching Nova's documentary on 'what animals are thinking' and as usual I learned a lot from it.....Nova's documentaries are just awesomeness.  

Pigeons navigate to their home roosts through hearing the low frequency sounds of the location. Scientists at first theorized that they navigated through magnetic fields and smell but later eliminated these theories after experiments. 

Rats have displayed empathy and sharing of food in experiments featuring trapped companions and moral dilemmas (friend or food first?). Bonobos also released other bonobos to allow them to share fruits. Ants bit through nylon trappings to release other ants but only if they were their kin.

Dogs have displayed an understanding of fairness by refusing to 'perform' after repeated unfair treatment (the other test doggies got food for similar actions while they didn't). In another series of experiments, scientists found that the guilty expression that dogs displayed was in response to scolding from their owners and not because of guilt.

Slime mould have inter-cellular communication and can figure the most efficient way through a maze to find a food source.

Bees have a hive mind. In an experiment featuring a choice between 2 new hive locations, scouts came back and wiggle-danced to show the location of the new location. Convinced bees then spread the dance to communicate and convince more bees. They also interrupted the dancing of rival bees who supported the other hive location. Once a critical mass was achieved, they departed en masse to the new location.

Monkeys would steal when no one's looking.

The ability of animals to think, communicate, plan and adapt gives us a better understanding of our once narrow and species-centric conception of intelligence.

The moral sense of animals gives us clues as to how our morals developed and allows us to reflect our own moral concepts. It also imbues us with greater humility and a greater sense of awe as to how we fit in with the the rest of our living world.

---'Why people believe weird things' by Michael Shermer--

---'Why people believe weird things' by Michael Shermer--

Interesting 'newbies' from the book
1. People confuse skeptics with cynic. 
2. I am therefore I think..sum ergo cogito

-Why do people believe weird things-
1. We evolved to be skilled pattern-finding and casual-finding creatures. 

2. Credo consolans- because they want to. It feels good and comforting. 

Traditional psychology is formal, expensive and time-consuming. Deep insight and improvement may take months or years. Delay of gratification is the norm, instant gratification the exception.

3. Simplicity. Immediate gratification of one's beliefs is made all the easier by simple explanations for an often complex and contingent world. Scientific and critical thinking does not come naturally and needs training, experience and effort.

4. Others believe in weird things for reasons of morality and meaning.

5. Hypnopompic hallucinations: visions of the supernatural that occur as one emerges from deep sleep. Hypnagogic hallucinations: occurs soon after falling asleep

6. People have errors in thinking because:
a. Without corroborative evidence, anecdotes do not make a science
b. scientific language does not make a science
c. Heresy does not equal correctness
d. Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim
e. Emotive words provoke emotion and obscure rationality

7. Confirmation bias. Paranoia is just another form of confirmation bias.

Psychics depend on the power of confirmation bias by telling their clients what to expect in their future.

-Why do smart people also believe in weird things?-
1. They are smart and good at defending their illogical beliefs.

Although there is some evidence that intelligent people are slightly less likely to believe in some superstitions and paranormal beliefs, overall conclusions are equivocal and limited.

2. For the most part, intelligence is orthogonal to and independent of belief.

3. Smart people might be smart in only 1 field.

4. Intellectual attribution bias where we consider our own actions as being rationally motivated whereas we see those of others as more emotionally driven.

- Belief in weird things as related to profession, gender and age-
With regard to psychic belief, women are the vast majority. Ufology are guy beliefs. There are No differences between men and women in the power of belief, only in what they choose to believe.

People under thirty were more superstitious than older age groups. Religiosity and belief in god steadily decreased with age until about 75 when it went back up.

Psychologists were the most skeptical of all because they best understand the psychology of belief and how easy it is to be fooled,

Deep commitment to belief in esp entails that one has a strong internal locus of control.