Cathi Carol

Archive for 2012|Yearly archive page

If Today Were My Last Day

In Christmas, Personal on December 3, 2012 at 9:00 am


__________

 

Tomorrow is nothing, today is too late;

the hungry cats lived yesterday.

Herman*

__________
 
 

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, all the people I love!

I love you, my beloved brother John,

my beloved brother Bob,

my beloved only sister Bonnie,

my beloved sister-in-law Dale,

my beloved brother Sean and step-mother Anne,

and all of my aunts and uncles and cousins.

And of course, my parents and grandparents in Heaven,
and all of those who have gone on before us.

I know that we will see each other again.

__________

 
Once you realize Who you are and set out on the journey Home, the end is sure.
– Paraphrased from A Course In Miracles.

PS – I love you, too, Nickelback. And you, too, the Bee Gees.

 
Related Posts:

Give a Fish
December 4, 2013

Christmas Wishes for My Family
December 25, 2011

 
* With help from Marcus Aurelius.

 


 
© 2012 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not republish without permission.
 
Last Updated: December 3, 2012
 
Please find additional book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.
 
Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link. Thank you!
 

Early Family Photos

In Personal on October 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm

 

Childhood Home - Lake Oswego Oregon

Childhood Home – Lake Oswego, Oregon

 

My Parents' Wedding Day - Copyright 2012 by Cathi Carol. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Republish.

My Parents’ Wedding Day

 

Robert G. McBride

Dad in the Air Force

Dad and His T-33. Copyright 2012 by Cathi Carol. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Republish.

Dad and His T-33

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Me as a Toddler (Happy Near my Favorite Appliance). Copyright 2012 by Cathi Carol. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Republish.

Grandma’s House

 

Me and John with Mom. Copyright 2012 by Cathi Carol. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Republish.

Me and John with Mom

 

Me, Bob, and John - My Brothers and I in Our Treehouse. Copyright 2012 by Cathi Carol. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Republish.

Me, Bob, and John

 

My Beautiful, Beloved Siblings and Me - Bonnie, Me, John, Bob. Copyright 2012 by Cathi Carol. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Republish.

My Beautiful, Beloved Siblings and Me – Bonnie, Me, John, Bob

 
 

 
Photo/Art Credit:

All photos copyright © 2012 by Cathi Carol. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Republish.

Pictured:

My father Robert G. McBride, my mother Patricia J. McBride, my brother Johnathan D. McBride, my brother Robert L. McBride, my sister Bonnie C. McBride, and me when I was Kathleen C. McBride.
 

Related Posts:

Christmas Wishes for My Family
December 25, 2011

 


 
Last Updated: October 17, 2012
 
Please find additional book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.
 
Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link. Thank you!
 
© 2012 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not republish without permission. Thank you!
 

I Recommend:  The Oeuvre of P. G. Wodehouse

In Recommendations on August 9, 2012 at 7:03 pm
P. G. Wodehouse

P. G. Wodehouse

__________

 

Well, there it is. That’s Jeeves.
Where others merely smite the brow and clutch the hair, he acts.
Napoleon was the same.

__________

 

Sir Pelham Grenville Wodehouse, KBE, October 15, 1881 – February 14, 1975, was an English humorist whose body of work includes novels, short stories, plays, poems, song lyrics, and numerous pieces of journalism.

He enjoyed enormous popular success during a career that lasted more than seventy years, and his many writings continue to be widely read.

Wodehouse’s main canvas remained that of Edwardian, pre-1914 English upper-class society, reflecting his birth, education, and youthful writing career.

An acknowledged master of English prose, Wodehouse has been admired both by contemporaries such as Hilaire Belloc, Evelyn Waugh and Rudyard Kipling, and by modern writers such as Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens, J. K. Rowling, and John Le Carré.

- Wikipedia
 

Grand Master, comedian, creator of the brilliant Jeeves, P. G. Wodehouse – pronounced “Woodhouse” – wrote columns, short stories, books, and was the librettist or lyricist of several early-20th century hit Broadway musical comedies, collaborating with composers Jerome Kern, Guy Bolton, and Oscar Hammerstein. He published from 1902 to 1977.

Even if you’ve never read a Wodehouse book or short story perhaps you’ve heard of his beloved character, the valet and “keeper” of the exceedingly rich man-about-town and priceless chump Bertie Wooster, Jeeves.

Jeeves is almost always depicted on book covers as a stereotypic fat, lumbering old butler, and Bertie shown as a plain boyish-looking young man, but that is not the way they are described in the novels.

Story narrator Bertie Wooster described Jeeves as a “darkish Johnnie” in one of the first short stories in which he appeared, often inferring later through context that Jeeves was a tall, good looking man, I always imagined. No one with that whip-like brain could possibly have a tubby, bulbous-nosed body.

Bertie never once described Jeeves as old, fat, or out of shape, unlike his descriptions of some of the rotund, pondering old butlers he encountered in his adventures, including Beach, the major domo of Blandings Castle.

Jeeves, though an intellectual homebody, was young and lithe enough to get out on the floor and dance on special occasions.

My ideal casting for Jeeves is the urbane, svelte, tall, dark, and devastatingly handsome British actor Rupert Everett. In my mind no one else has the intelligent features and the gravitas to do justice to the brainy, cool, Spock-like Jeeves.

Bertie Wooster was without question good-looking, “willowy”, and guileless. Young women were attracted to him, and he become engaged to many snooty upperclass society girls, engagements from which he later always had to ask Jeeves to unentangle him.

My introduction to Wodehouse wasn’t through Bertie and Jeeves, however.

Browsing one day in a bookstore (an eternal pursuit), I picked up a very thick book called The Golf Omnibus, a collection of golf short stories. I thought that it might make a good gift for a golf-fanatic friend of mine. I had never heard of the author.

I read the first story to determine if the book was worth buying. Then I bought the book, took it home, and read them all.

I laughed and was utterly enchanted, the best description of all of Wodehouse’s “First Time Readers”. I wanted to keep the book, so I bought another copy for my golfing friend.

The Golf Omnibus was my entré into the world of Wodehouse.

I discovered through looking for more books by P. G. Wodehouse that he was the creator of the famous “Jeeves”, whose name I’d heard so often.

I read the Jeeves books, the Blandings Castle books, the Drones Club and hilarious Uncle Fred stories, and then Wodehouse’s delightful autobiographies.

I haven’t looked at literature the same since.

 
P. G. Wodehouse:

P. G. Wodehouse books at Amazon

P. G. Wodehouse – Wikipedia

P. G. Wodehouse – Wikipedia Bibliography

P. G. Wodehouse – Random House U.K. – Arrow Books

The Wodehouse Society  (fansite)

Wodehouse Quotes at Goodreads

 
Article:

Was Bertie Wooster a silly ass or a wise man?
A. N. Wilson, Telegraph, February 18, 2008

 
Related Posts:

I Recommend: The Oeuvre of Isaac Asimov
August 27, 2011

I Recommend: Gone With the Wind
August 20, 2011

I Recommend: We Don’t Die
October 29, 2011

I Recommend: On The 2008 Financial Crisis
May 18, 2011

The I Recommend Category Page

 
Photo/Art Credit:

Wikipedia Commons
Original photographer unknown.

 


 
© 2012 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved.
 
Last Updated: October 30, 2012
 
Please find additional book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.
 
Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.
 
© 2012 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not republish without permission.
 
Thank you!
 

The Higgs Boson

In Physics, Quantum Physics, Science on July 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm

NGC 4565

Pie, people.

 

__________

 

Peter HiggsPeter Higgs

CERN physicists have declared the possible finding of what physicist Leon Lederman, a card, took to calling “The God Particle”, the Higgs boson.

The CERN physicists are not sure yet that what they have found is the Higgs, though, so for now they are calling it a “Higgs-like” particle.

Like many thinking people, I am skeptical of the whole thing.

I have been ignoring modern particle physics for a while (although I never stop thinking about it) for reasons I’ll explain below.

Remember “the ether”? One of the many beliefs scientists of yorish possessed that we learned to sneer at – how stupid people were back then! – in high school physics class?
 

Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon M. Lederman

 
Well, you may find this hard to believe, but for thousands of years people have been just as intelligent, or just as dumb, as we are today.

Higgs theory is very elegant. I like it very much, as far as it goes.

But that’s not very far. The Standard Model is starting to fray around the edges.

The one thing I do know is that future scientists will laugh at, and teach their students to laugh at, what physicists believe today.

The Higgs Boson is likely not what scientists think it is. There are many problems with the concept of a Higgs particle, and no understanding at all of what the Higgs field might be.

Ignorance that is going to hang up progress in physics for a long time.

CMS Events - CERN

What I find most amusing about the supposed discovery of a Higgs-like particle is the assertion that always accompanies new discoveries in physics, the proud delusion, “This will end science as we know it. Everything that can be discovered now has been discovered.”

This recurring belief reflects gross ignorance.

And net arrogance.

Physics has been “over”, “completed”, “everything known” many times. Over and over and over again physics has been declared finished. Yet it never is, of course.

Physics certainly isn’t anywhere near being “done” now, since physicists are still heading in the wrong direction – in many wrong directions – due to its doomed pursuit of String Theory, and its continued stubborn materialism, despite the tantalizing glimpses of a true Theory of Everything afforded by quantum theory. It’s unbelievable!

Physicists still are leaping onto their respective individual theory-horses and dashing off madly in all directions. Few directions are the right ones.

Yet let some poor schlub physicist invent something in his mind that the multiple hive-mind of physics finally manages to create in a matter-smasher (exactly as imagined – has any postulated particle ever eventually not been “found”?), and suddenly physics is thought to be over. At least in the news.

Physicists believe that they are putting together the pieces of the puzzle of the universe, not realizing that they are the ones cutting up the pieces in the first place.

Higgs Event - Wikipedia

The puzzle of the universe is that it is a whole, a one, that looks like a many.

Physicists chip away at the whole, capture what flies off, call it something, and then try to fit it back into the whole in a way that makes some sense of the whole.

That won’t happen until they get all the way down to the bottom of matter/energy/force. I won’t spoil the “surprise”.

But physicists are taking too many detours along the way.

Every theory physicists come up with requires an assumption here, a cosmological constant there, a glitch in the other place, an instability around the back.

Physicists are not getting anywhere near to a Grand Unification Theory because they’re still cutting things up. They will when they start to put things back together.

Reductionism will peter out eventually. There comes a point where reductionism devolves into the understanding that one is creating, not discovering.

I love quantum physics. I love it all – quarks, you know, mysterious double-slits, uncertainty and action at a distance and triple conservation – it is spellbinding.

"String Theory Summarized" - xkcd

But I lost faith in the 1980s, after quantum physics had turned to String Theory. I had never heard anything more demented.

It was intensely frustrating to me (and some physicists) that most modern theoretical physicists were wasting their time on anything so, um, wrong.

I became even more disillusioned when I realized that physicists believe that there are such things as “force-carrying particles”.

The Standard Model, the coolest thing ever, was starting to look square.

Force = energy = matter. Remember?

Particles are force. Particles are gravity. There is no division into particle-particles and force-carrying particles. Each is the other.

Why would we need gravitons, for instance? Gravity is a property of space-time.

Why would we need any gluons at all when particles carry their own force; that is, when particles are force?

So the slogging out and away from reality and back is slow. But I do believe some physicists are beginning to catch a glimmer, when they look up and away from their invented particles, and remember to take a look at the whole.

Physicists make up theories about the universe, about matter and force and energy, off the tops of their heads (like I do). Then they imagine particles and perform experiments to verify them. They decide what the verifying particles might look like, how they might act, what their properties might be, and then go looking for them in matter-smashers.

Large Hadron Collider - Photo by Maximilien Brice at CERN

Various subatomic particles are run into each other at very high speeds. The pieces that fly out of the smash-up physicists categorize. Physicists categorize subatomic particles the way that botanists categorize plants.

The faster physicists can smash particles together, the more varied are the particle pieces that come flying out.

 
They keep at this until they manage to kick out a piece that matches up with what they want to find.

Then they announce that they have discovered “it”. (Of course, once they have found one “it”, it always becomes easier to find more. The universe cooperates in any way it can.)

The properties that physicists think their various made-up particles might have are just parameters that they assign to fit some model they have made up. If a bit that flies out of a matter-smasher smash-up fits the parameters they have assigned to the particle that they have made up, then they call the bit that particle.

So circular. It makes me laugh, and cry.

Everything is made out of light. Light is a fundamental “unit”. Instead of ripping things apart, try putting together some light, physicists.

I want to believe that anything called a “God Particle” – anything considered foundational – might be photon-like, or related to the photon.

Or, you know, be the photon.
CMS Events 3 - CERN

All of the particles that physicists think they have discovered are made out of photons. Figure that out and get on with your lives, physicists.

And then start to think about how consciousness fits in.

It is consciousness that creates light.

Almost anything you want to imagine you can create. That is what physicists are doing with their big, bigger,
biggest matter-smashing machines.

Creating. Not finding.

But what do I know?

Imagine very small. Think very big. The universe ultimately is homogenous.

The universe is pie. The harder you throw a pie against the wall, the smaller and more varied will be the pieces that come flying out.

But it is all still pie.
 
Cherry Pie
Resources:

Theory (from Wikipedia):

Higgs Boson

Higgsless Model

 
Did they find what they think they found? Does it mean what they think it means?

Be skeptical. Be very skeptical. Especially of:

String Theory

And even of:

The Standard Model, still beautiful. Just out of date.

 
Articles:

 
 
The Higgs Boson Explained
Astronomy Picture of the Day, May 1, 2012
A video cartoon. (Grain of salt, people. About everything.)

New Data on Higgs Boson is Shrouded in Secrecy at CERN
Dennis Overbye, New York Times, June 19, 2012

Physicists Inch Closer to Proof of Elusive Particle
Dennis Overbye, New York Times, July 2, 2012

Higgs Boson Found?
“Solid evidence of the “God particle” may be just hours away. Without it, we’d have no galaxies, no planets — and no life, theory says.”
Ker Than, National Geographic News, July 2, 2012
“Theory says.” I don’t believe the theory.

Physicists Find Particle That Could Be The Higgs Boson
“Scientists in Geneva on Wednesday applauded the discovery of a subatomic particle that looks like the Higgs boson.”
Dennis Overbye, New York Times, July 4, 2012

What in the World Is a Higgs Boson?
Dennis Overbye, New York Times, July 4, 2012

CERN physicists say they have discovered ‘Higgs-like’ boson
Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2012

New Particle Found, Consistent With Higgs Boson
“Discovery May Help Tell Universe’s Secrets”
“After Half-Century Search, Scientists Pin Down Higgs-Like Particle, Closing In on Explanation for Why All Objects Exist”
Gautam Naik, Wall Street Journal, July 4, 2012

Higgs boson: it’s unofficial! Cern scientists discover missing particle
“‘God particle’ that gives mass to the universe thought to have been found in Large Hadron Collider, announce scientists”
Ian Sample, Guardian, July 4, 2012

CERN: We Pretty Much Found The Higgs-Boson
Joe Weisenthal, Business Insider, July 4, 2012

Higgs Boson ‘Discovered’, Existence Of Mass In Universe Explained By ‘God Particle’
Anthony Wing Kosner, Forbes, July 4, 2012

Best explanation of the Higgs boson?
“Former science minister, William Waldegrave, offered a prize in 1993 for the best lay explanation of the Higgs boson. Professor David Miller, of UCL, won the prize with the following analogy.”
BBC News, July 4, 2012
A cartoon. Just like the theory itself.

A Moment for Particle Physics: The End of a 40-Year Story?
Stephen Wolfram (blog), July 5, 2012
I love this. Very nice. Very smart. I love his ennui. I feel the same way.

Still Confused About the Higgs Boson? Read This
Garance Franke-Ruta, Atlantic, July 6, 2012
It doesn’t help, because today’s modern particle physics is your basic out of date gobbletygook.

Faster, Stronger, Earlier: The American Particle Accelerator That Never Was
Robinson Meyer, Atlantic, July 6, 2012
Congress’ biggest science mistake.
(Shame, shame on today’s Republicans for everything wrong with our country right now.)

Our Political Black Hole
Gail Collins, New York Times, July 6, 2012

The Higgs Boson, a Blip That Speaks of Our Place in the Universe
Lawrence M. Krauss, New York Times, July 9, 2012

On the so-called ‘God Particle’
Errant Transcendentalist/Zen Being (blog), July 13, 2012

Peter Higgs’ Big Day
“How does it feel to have your namesake particle discovered?”
Jessica Griggs, New Scientist/Slate, July 29, 2012

Dispatch From CERN: Which Higgs?
Marcelo Gleiser, NPR, February 27, 2013

Dark Matter May Not Exist At All
Michael D. Lemonick, Time, February 26, 2013

Case for Higgs Boson Strengthened by New CERN Analysis
Simeon Bennett, Bloomberg, March 14, 2013

Scientists More Certain that Particle is Higgs Boson
Elizabeth Landau, CNN, March 16, 2013

 
CERN:

Why would I care about the Higgs boson?
CMS Experiment, CERN, 2 July 2012

Observation of a New Particle with a Mass of 125 GeV
CMS Experiment, CERN, 4 July 2012

CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson
CERN Press Release, 4 July 2012

 
Books:

The God Particle:  If the Universe is the Question, What is the Answer?
Leon Lederman and Dick Teresi. Houghton Mifflin, 1993; 2012.

Not Even Wrong:  The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law
Peter Woit. Basic Books, 2006; 2007.

Find more books on Quantum Physics at my Amazon Store.

 
Related Posts:

See my Physics post category.

 
Photo/Art Credit:

NGC 4565: Galaxy on Edge
Image Credit & Copyright: Ken Crawford (Rancho Del Sol Obs.)
Astronomy Picture of the Day, July 5, 2012

The inserts are from CERN and Wikipedia.

 
Tweets:

 

 

 


 
© 1980-2012 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved.
 
Last Updated: March 17, 2013
 
Kindle this blog and find book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.
 
Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.

Thank you!
 

Ignorance Pwnd

In Politics, Reading and Writing, Spirituality on June 11, 2012 at 10:05 am

Isaac Asimov - Illustration

By This Man

__________

 

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread
winding its way through our political and cultural life,
nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that
my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.


Isaac Asimov

__________

 

I dreamed I had gone to Heaven.

“But there must be some mistake,” I said to the Recording Angel.

“I don’t belong here. I’m an atheist.”

“No mistake”, said the RA.

“But how can I qualify?”

“We decide who qualifies, not you.”

Then I asked for a typewriter.

Isaac Asimov

__________

 

 
Related Post:

I Recommend:
The Oeuvre of Isaac Asimov

August 27, 2011

 
Resources:

In Memory Yet Green
The Autobiography of Isaac Asimov, Volume One

Isaac Asimov. Doubleday, 1979 (out of print).

In Joy Still Felt
The Autobiography of Isaac Asimov, Volume Two

Isaac Asimov. Doubleday, 1980 (out of print).

I, Asimov – A Memoir
Isaac Asimov. Doubleday, 1994/95.
Asimov’s third autobiography, a condensed version of the two above.

Yours, Isaac Asimov
A Life in Letters

Isaac Asimov. Doubleday, 1995; Main Street Books, 1996.

It’s Been a Good Life
Isaac Asimov. Prometheus Books, 2002.

Find more books by Isaac Asimov (fiction and non-fiction) at my Amazon bookstore.

 
Articles on Isaac Asimov:

The Translator
Time, July 7, 1967 (subscription only)

What Makes Isaac Write?
Peter Stoler, Time, February 26, 1979

The Protean Penman
Stefan Kanfer, Time, December 19, 1988

Isaac Asimov: Author. Scientist. Raconteur. Babe magnet. Wit. Genius.
Cracked reference webpage (NSFW – language.)

 
More Information on Isaac Asimov:

Wikipedia

Wikiquote

Asimov Online (fan site)
Bibliography by Publication Date
Bibliography by Topic

Isaac Asimov books at my Amazon bookstore.

 
Photo/Art Credit:

Image posted online by Will Wheaton, who discovered it at Bergopolis.

Source unknown. Please contact me if you know the artist or copyright owner.

 


 
© 1980-2012 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved.
 
Last Updated: March 9, 2013
 
Kindle this blog and find my book, film, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.
 
Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.

Thank you!
 

Put Down that Diet Soda and Back Away

In Food, Health, Medicine on May 27, 2012 at 6:46 pm

 
"Coke" Soda Can by Alessandro Paiva

Are You Betting your Life on Artificial Sweeteners?

 

__________

 

They may be free of calories but not of consequences.

Dr. Helen P. Hazuda

Professor and Chief of Clinical Epidemiology
University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio School of Medicine

__________

 
 
No soda is good for you, but if you must drink soda, do stick to sugar-sweetened.

And not too many of those. If you drink soda at all, make it an occasional treat. All soda is rather anti-nutritional.

Please, get a juicer, eat an organic orange, make organic lemonade with your own sugar, go to a Jamba Juice or another juice store that eschews artificial ingredients for pure fresh squeezed juice (fresh squeezed juice – bottled, canned, processed refrigerated or frozen juice is almost as worthless to your body as soda; don’t bother).

Do any or all of these things instead of drinking soda, and your addiction to flavored sugar-water will wane over time. As a bonus, switching from soda to fresh squeezed juice will strengthen your immune system.

Diet soda is far more than just a “0 calorie” taste-bud stimulator or, if caffeinated, a highly-addictive energy booster. To make diet soda taste “good”, non-food (non-caloric) chemicals are added to diet soda. These chemicals are worse for you than sugar, and taken regularly over time, do far more damage to your body.

You can bet that soda is addictive (when you start drinking it you tend to keep seeking it, don’t you? I certainly do.) Think a little about what you’re doing to your body.

(This applies to drinking alcohol, including wine, as well. Alcohol is nature’s anesthetic and was never intended to be consumed recreationally. It is not food. It is not healthy in any way, despite the “studies” purporting that it is good for your heart – shallow and politically-correct pseudo-science, not science.)

The artificial sweetener industry, citing their own, of course, tobacco science, swear on the graves of the mothers, like mine, who drank a six-pack of diet soda every day and was fattened by metabolic syndrome, partially blinded by methanol, and liver-damaged by excitotoxins, that the widely-used artificial sweetener aspartame is safe.

The companies that produce aspartame regularly foam at the mouth that the “controversy” over the safety of aspartame is an internet hoax, a chain-mail lie, a deliberate fraud.

Aspartame manufacturers want us to believe that even other scientists are trying to trick us ignorant, naïve consumers into thinking that aspartame is a dangerous chemical, and that people who consume aspartame are the only clear-thinking, discriminating, smart consumers out there.

However, some consumers, doctors, researchers, and entire countries disagree that artificial sweeteners (or artificial flavors, artificial colors, or artificial ingredients of any kind) are safe in food. More and more independent scientific evidence is accumulating that is showing aspartame to be unsafe to eat.

I am a skeptic, in the original sense of the word: I eschew dogmatic belief. I find evidence from empiricism, including the experience of a critical, to a significant, to an overwhelming number of consumers more compelling than misguided public-health agenda, vested financial bias, or harrumphing authoritarianism.

In other words, I find it most logical to trust disinterested parties – non-industry-affiliated physicians and nutritionists, for instance, and the experiences of the general public, who at least start out without drums to bang – over interested parties such as the industry-affiliated FDA and the industrial firms that produce the chemicals, drugs, and artificial food products that we consume; again, assuring us that their products are safe by citing their own research.

The chemical industry tries to impress upon the public the purported safety of all of the chemicals that they invent and can sell, but not to trust the safety of one’s own body to chemicals unnatural to one’s body is simple, and overwhelming, logic.

Notoriously, many medical groups and spokespeople still pander to industrial interests. Research “conclusions” that this or that chemical is safe for human consumption are more often than not overturned eventually (and the so-called fringe scaremongers telling people the opposite, trying to save everyone’s lives, proven correct). Unfortunately, this seems to happen usually after it is too late to keep innocent people from being damaged.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, for instance, CNN’s on-air “health expert”, is a nationally-broadcast talking head who, like most news media health experts, is a standard-issue doctor guided by the AMA, the membership of which is often beholden to corporate interests for funding and research grants.

Unfortunately, as personable as Gupta is, he is insidiously unreliable due to his extreme medical conservatism. Like most doctors when it comes to standards of practice and medical knowledge, he is an average of twenty to fifty years behind the times.

Gupta wrote in 2010 that aspartame is safe and disparages any idea that it is not. Gupta is representative of most on-air medical opinion.

The highly respectable Dr. Richard Besser, of ABC, also gets so many things wrong that one wonders whom he is protecting. For instance, when people drink soda, they usually drink the same amount every day – in order words, soda intake for people who drink soda usually does remain constant from day to day, because soda is addictive.

Just look around at your family and friends who drink diet soda. Do most of them drink it only occasionally, or do they consume several cans every day?

Practicing physicians must be careful not to express in public opinions based even on their own observations and empiricism that varies from that sanctioned by their medical organizations and specialty boards. They can lose their licenses if they do.

But it is embarrassing to watch doctors repeat whatever they have been told, no matter how biased or out of date, on national TV (rather than doing and reporting on their own research and experience). For me, for one, it’s become hard to believe anything that they say.

Medical opinion is too often out of date, misinformed, or biased (not to mention often condescending and arrogant).

For example, read the conservative British Medical Association’s editorial opinion on aspartame from 2004.

But even food companies are starting to abandon aspartame based on independent science, despite such highly biased medical journal editorializing on its safety.

Here is something you may not know: You know more about your own body than your doctor does. If you haven’t figured that out yet, allow me to clue you in.

To be safest, do your own nutritional and health reading, trust your own body and experience, and be highly skeptical of your doctor’s opinions, diagnoses, and treatment plans if they don’t match up with what you know of your own body, history, and experience.

The health, and even the life, you save may be your own.

Professional nutritionists have been warning about the health dangers of artificial sweeteners since the 1950s. As a health-aware person, I won’t touch them. I avoid even stevia, which hasn’t been proven safe for daily consumption. When I want something sweet, I stick with evaporated cane or beet sugar, honey, molasses, and like – tried and true real foods that our ancestors have eaten for centuries (organic whenever I can get them), not made-in-the-lab chemicals, about which we know little because the corporations that manufacture them hide, downplay, or outright deny anything negative about their consumption.

But it’s not just doubt or suspicion that makes me eat this way. It’s common sense. Non-endogenous chemicals simply are not safe to consume, period – especially as everyday foods (excepting nutrients such as essential amino acids that the body can’t make itself and must take in from the outside, but that’s another animal, so to speak – endogenous chemicals that other living beings create and human beings must take advantage of nutritionally).

I’ve always been of the better-safe-than-sorry camp. How about you?

Whatever you do, don’t stock soda in a house that contains children. Soda, if consumed at all, should be a rare treat (something consumed with a rare take-out meal, for instance, when it’s fun), not an every day choice.

Milk and fresh-squeezed orange juice are much healthier.

 
Articles:

Avoid Artificial Sweeteners
Dr. David Brownstein

60 Minutes’ Wallace Grills Monsanto Over Sweetener
Josh Gotthelf, St. Louis Business Journal, January 5, 1997
Videos of the 60 Minutes segment here (You Tube) and here (Google Video).

Aspartame and its Effects on Health
The sweetener has been demonised unfairly in sections of the press
and several websites
(Editorial)
Michael E. J. Lean and Catherine R. Hankey, BMJ, October 2, 2004
(BMJ. 2004 October 2; 329(7469): 755–756. – doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7469.755)

Independently funded studies have found potential for adverse effects (Letter)
John Briffa, BMJ, February 5, 2005
(BMJ. 2005 February 5; 330(7486): 309–310. – doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7486.309-a)

Readers may prefer balanced and impartial editorials (Letter)
Ian J. Gordon, BMJ, February 5, 2005
(BMJ. 2005 February 5; 330(7486): 310. – doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7486.310)

Study Links Aspartame To Cancer
CBS News, July 28, 2005

Aspartame – FDA, Diet Industry Deny Cancer Link
PSA Rising, June 27, 2007 (“posted by admin” – so who knows who really wrote the article, or if it originated on this site?
I recommend more clarity.)

Aspartame Cancer Risks Revisited: Prenatal Exposure May Be Greatest Concern
M. Nathaniel Mead, Environmental Health Perspectives, September 2007
(Environ Health Perspect. 2007 September; 115(9): A460.)

Aspartame manufacturer funds junk science that declares aspartame to be safe
Mike Adams, NaturalNews, September 13, 2007

A role for sweet taste: calorie predictive relations in energy regulation by rats
Swithers SE, Davidson TL. Behav Neurosci. 2008 Feb;122(1):161-73.

Soft Drink Consumption Not The Major Contributor To Childhood Obesity
Medical News Today, June 18, 2012
- Reliably, “food security” predicts overeating more than sugar consumption – one reason why low-carb diets (fasting in particular) and food shaming are terrible ideas and lead directly to eating disorders.

Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Weight Gain
Cutting the connection between sweets and calories may confuse the body,
making it harder to regulate intake.

American Psychological Association, February 10, 2008

Testimony of Ralph Walton, M.D., former Psychiatry Professor, to Hawaii Health Committee Regarding Aspartame
PRLog, February 10, 2008

Kids Still Drinking Too Much Soda, Even When Not Available At School
ScienceDaily, September 2, 2008

Is aspartame safe?
Sanjay Gupta, CNN Health, March 18, 2010

America’s Deadliest Sweetener Betrays Millions, Then Hoodwinks You With Name Change
Joseph Mercola, Huffington Post, July 6, 2010

Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice. (abstract)
Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Manservigi M, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, Falcioni L, Bua L., American Journal of Industrial Medicine, December 2010
(Am J Ind Med. 2010 Dec;53(12):1197-206.)

Diet Soda Linked To Weight Gain
Amanda Chan, Huffington Post, June 29, 2011
- “Diet soda might not help you stay trim after all, new research suggests. A study presented at a American Diabetes Association meeting this week shows that drinking diet soda is associated with a wider waist in humans. And a second study shows that aspartame – an artificial sweetener in diet soda – actually raises blood sugar in mice prone to diabetes. ‘Data from this and other prospective studies suggest that the promotion of diet sodas and artificial sweeteners as healthy alternatives may be ill-advised,’ study researcher Helen P. Hazuda, Ph.D., a professor and chief of clinical epidemiology at the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio’s School of Medicine, said in a statement. ‘They may be free of calories but not of consequences’.”

Meet Big Soda — as Bad as Big Tobacco
Kelly Brownell, Time, October 24, 2011

Is That Flame Retardant In Your Soft Drink?
Rachel Cernansky, Tree Hugger, December 13, 2011

Miller School Researchers Link Diet Soda and Salt to Cardiovascular Risk
University of Miami, Health News, February 9, 2011

Diet Soda: Fewer Calories, Greater Stroke Risk?
Katie Moisse, ABC News, February 9, 2011
- So much dithering and denial in this article. Whom do they think they are protecting?

Study Finds Possible Link Between Diet Soda and Vascular Risks
News Releases, University of Miami, February 9, 2012

How to Ditch Your Diet Soda Habit
Amy, Nutrition-Accomplished (blog), February 16, 2012
Tapering off is the best advice for all bad-habits elimination. Cold turkey doesn’t work.

Is there a link between diet soda and heart disease?
Nancy Ferrari, Harvard Health, February 21, 2012
- Much more facing-the-truth than the article above (and much more explanatory).

Risks: Diet Soft Drinks Linked to Heart Disease
Nicholas Bakalar, The New York Times, February 27, 2012

Aspartame Withdrawal and Side Effects Explained
Here’s How to Protect Yourself

Aurora Geib, NaturalNews, March 2, 2012

Sudden Cardiac Death and Food Excitotoxin Additives
Russell L. Blaylock, Progressive Radio Network, April 2, 2012
Excitotoxicity at Wikipedia. Skip the MSG, too, if you want to live.
Dr. Blaylock’s website.

Gum goes from humdrum to teen fashion statement
Bruce Horovitz, USA Today, May 7, 2012
- Even cool gum makers are eschewing aspartame, finally, but as a fashion statement rather than a concern for peoples’ health. Besides, gum is a “new” fashion statement? What happened to the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s? There is nothing new under the sun. People haven’t changed in 150,000 years.

The Calorie-Counting Myth
Sylviana Hamdani, Jakarta Globe, May 14, 2012
- The most helpful and fascinating article in this list. But don’t drink wine. No matter what “good” things may be in wine, ethyl alcohol kills cells and causes multisystem disease no matter where it comes from.

Lawsuits slam ‘natural’ claims from [processed] orange juice to chips
Jessica Gresko, Associated Press, May 31, 2012

Artificial Sweeteners: The Challenges of Tricking the Taste Buds
Kenneth Chang, New York Times, June 11, 2012

Doubts By The Teaspoonful
“Choosing a Sugar Substitute”
Kenneth Chang, New York Times, June 11, 2012

Soft Drink Consumption Not The Major Contributor To Childhood Obesity
Medical News Today, June 18, 2012
- From a press release regarding the study:
“Beverage patterns among Canadian children and relationship to overweight and obesity”
by Danyliw, A.D., Vatanparast, H., Nikpartow, N., and Whiting, S.J.
Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 37(5). doi: 10.1139/ H2012-0074.

How Soda Companies’ Social Responsibility Campaigns Are Harming Your Health
Alexandra Sifferlin, Time, June 22, 2012

Cutting Out Soda Curbs Children’s Weight Gain, Studies Show
Alice Park, Time, September 22, 2012
- This article cites several studies that purport to assert that diet soda is better for kids than sugared. I would take that recommendation with a grain of salt. Eating less sugar does assist with weight loss; that is indisputable. On the other hand, these studies don’t follow their subjects over time to determine whether there is subsequent accumulative physical damage due to the chemicals in diet soda, which, I might add, has also been shown to be true. Remember that many of these studies are funded by or assisted by soda manufacturers. The very best solution is to allow children little no soda at all in their diets and to allow only “natural” sodas or sugared sodas when soda is allowed. A complete ban is a bad idea in a culture where the banned items are commonly available; “prohibition” doesn’t work on a humanistic level and tends rather to romanticise the banned items, to cause communication breakdown, and to encourage the normalization of cheating and lying. Instead, talk to kids about the truth, make your preferences clear and why, listen without fear or judgment to kids’ questions, and honor their humanity.

Sugary Drinks Linked To Increased Prostate Cancer Risk
Agence France Presse via Business Insider, November 26, 2012
- I’m skeptical of such shallow conclusion-leaping. Still, this supports the thesis that soda of any stripe is not the healthiest choice. Eat an orange.

PepsiCo Will Halt Use of Additive in Gatorade
Stephanie Strom, The New York Times, January 25, 2013
- The additive is also used as a fire retardant, as cited above.

The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food
Michael Moss, The New York Times, February 20, 2013

Could there be evils lurking in aspartame consumption?
Christine Lydon, M.D., posted at dorway.com, undated. A very well-written essay.

Aspartame Symptoms Submitted to the FDA
“The following are symptoms attributed to aspartame in complaints submitted to the FDA by the Department of Health and Human Services April 20, 1995.”
Janet Starr Hull, SweetPoison (blog), undated.

Is Diet Soda Safe? We Examine the Evidence
Dave J. Mitchell, EZineArticles, Undated.

 
Books:

The Hundred-Year Lie
How to Protect Yourself from the Chemicals That Are Destroying Your Health

Randall Fitzgerald. Dutton, 2006.

The Unhealthy Truth
How Our Food Is Making Us Sick – And What We Can Do About It

Robyn O’Brien. Crown Archetype, 2009; Three Rivers, 2010.

 
Related Posts:

America’s Processed Foods, America’s Obesity Problem
February 5, 2011

Kids Need The Choice Of Chocolate Milk
June 18, 2011

 
Photo/Art Credit:

"Coke" Soda Can by Alessandro Paiva

 


 
© 2013 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not repost or republish in any form without the express permission of the author.
 
Last Updated: July 30, 2013
 
Find my book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.

See my profile at LinkedIn.  View Cathi Carol's profile on LinkedIn

Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.

Thank you!
 

How to Survive Psychiatry

In Children, Psychiatry on April 22, 2012 at 3:41 pm

"Grown Up 3" by Michèle Meister

__________

 

Just Say No

To Psychiatric Pharmaceuticals

__________

 

Going to a psychiatrist has become
one of the most dangerous things a person can do.

__________

 

If you are ever tempted to take yourself, or to give to your child, an antidepressant, an amphetamine such as Ritalin, an anti-anxiety medication such as Xanax, anti-bipolar medication, an anti-psychotic, or any other psychotropic drug, first do any amount of research on your own into how these drugs affect people – short term and long term.

You’ll change your mind. You should change your mind.

Please, decide not to take yourself, or to force on a child, a psychopharmaceutical, psychoactive, neuroleptic, or psychotropic medication or drug.

The good news is that no matter how bad you feel now, you will feel better soon on your own – usually sooner than you think. The mind has great self-healing power. Let yourself heal. Give yourself time to heal.

The bad news is that no matter how bad you feel now, taking a psychotropic drug will make you feel worse – if not now, then later. It will damage your brain, permanently, as well. It doesn’t take years or decades for the negative physical effects of taking psychotropic drugs to occur – they are immediate, long-lasting, and cumulative.

The physical side effects of psychotropic pharmaceuticals are extremely painful and, because they involve the brain, can be extremely confusing psychologically. In fact, it is the physical side effects of taking psychopharmaceutical drugs, and also attempting to withdraw from them, that cause the increase in suicides, violence, and even homicides that are the result, for many people, adults and children, of taking these drugs.

Calling the physical effects of psychotropic drugs “side-effects” is misleading, however. The damaging effects of psychotropic drugs, which are really direct effects, happen right along with the intended (usually placebo) effects that the pharmaceutical companies tout when selling them.

Contrary to the pharmaceutical companies’ contentions, psychoactive drugs do not work by restoring the brain’s chemicals to a natural balanced level. They work by disabling the normal action of the brain as it works to operate the body in accordance with the thoughts of the brain’s owner.

Psychoactive drugs work not by correcting the brain’s neurotransmitters, but by partially shutting down or speeding up the action of its neurotransmitters, zombie-fying you. This can cause what psychiatrist Peter Breggin calls medication spellbinding – intoxication anosognosia – not knowing that you are intoxicated.

This is not as innocuous as it sounds. People “often do not recognize that they’ve become irrational, depressed, angry, or even euphoric since beginning the medication. Second, if they do realize that they are having painful emotional feelings, medication spellbinding causes them to blame their feelings on [themselves or other people, rather] than the drug.” This is dangerous. It is something that you should not do either to yourself or to your child.

Technically, psychoactive pharmaceuticals force the neurons of the brain – the brain’s cells – to flood the brain with unnatural levels of the physically energizing or quieting neurotransmitters that the cells produce, and/or delaying these neurotransmitters’ re-uptake by other cells.

That is not a little thing to happen to your brain. It’s unnatural, and over time, often a very, very short time (days to weeks), it causes damage to the brain itself. (Incidentally, it also causes damage to other of the body’s tissues and organs.)

The physical action of psychopharmaceutical drugs makes them highly addictive immediately. It is so painful, subjectively, to have the brain flooded with extremely high levels of euphoric chemicals and then to have the chemicals quickly fade away that one must take the drug that caused the initial release of neurotransmitters again and again, at closer and closer intervals, to avoid painful withdrawal symptoms.

As the brain and the body, over days and weeks, habituates to higher and higher levels of these chemicals (which means that the body/brain sets up defenses to them and finds ways to react less strongly to them), one must “up one’s dose” to achieve any noticeable change in state.

It is this change in state, usually interpreted as “euphoria” – the shutting out of perception – caused by unnatural levels of brain chemicals, followed immediately by withdrawal into a highly agitated or depressed state, followed by taking more drugs which make one feel better again, that makes people think that the drugs are “working”, if they “work” at all; they often don’t. Most of the time, they don’t work the way they are “supposed” to, and alternative drugs must be tried, or more than one drug tried in combination with another, until a chemical “high” is reached that is sufficient to cause the patient to believe that the drugs are “working”.

“They must really be working if their effects are so strong”, many people think; if the drugs have such a deep impact and make one feel that one can’t live without them, then one must have been abnormal to begin with, is often the mistaken conclusion of people who don’t realize what is going on in their brains and bodies.

The drugs make one feel euphoric until one becomes habituated to their effects – then one may (or may not) feel “normal” again. But it’s a false-normal. It’s a drugged “normal”. It’s not a back-to-normal.

Any true back-to-normal that occurs is either a placebo effect, or, more likely, what would have happened naturally, over time, anyway.

The independent scientific consensus is that psychiatric drugs are damaging to the brain and to the body, and more evidence is accumulating.

(I am not motivated to write about this due to any religious affiliation or polemical bent; I am concerned with people’s physical and emotional well-being. Any controversy over what I’ve written here – along with what has been written by many other scientists, doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and independent reporters, researchers, and commentators – is maintained by the drugs’ manufacturers and distributors to discredit the independent science that has been done.)

Clinical psychologist Bertram P. Karon sums it up well: “Most, if not all, neuroleptic medications are neurotoxic,” he wrote. Many doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrics are aware of this, yet few tell their patients.

Drug companies that sell and doctors who prescribe these drugs attempt to convince their patients that the benefits of taking a neurotoxin outweigh the risks, but the risks are vastly downplayed both by the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them and by the doctors that prescribe them.

Psychiatric drugs are not as safe or effective as they are promoted to be. Much safer and far more effective alternatives exist, such as empathic counseling to help to get at the root of and to heal the pain or fear that is at the root of all metal disturbance, if the patient is unable to access and to heal the disturbance his- or herself over time.

When feeling in need of emotional support, when presented with the option to take a psychiatric drug in attempted amelioration of any emotional or physical symptom, the safest decision is to refuse these drugs. Don’t be tempted. If necessary, find a skilled practitioner willing to do empathic talk therapy, instead.

If you are already on these drugs, however, do not stop them abruptly (or let your child stop them cold turkey) – that is extremely dangerous physically and psychologically. Taper off very, very gradually (lowering the dose minisculely, and no more often than every two to three weeks, if a “quicker” schedule that the doctor may recommend does not work well), and doing something mind-distracting such as exercising – even just walking – when the painful physical (and therefore emotional) withdrawal symptoms are at their peak.

The withdrawal symptoms don’t mean that you – or your child – is really crazy. They mean that the body must readjust itself to not being on the drug that was being taken. (The body will do so; you will feel better, and you will eventually be both free of the drug and mentally well again. Just be patient. “Bite the bullet” of the temporary pain for a much greater good – being drug free – in the very near future; I promise you that that will come.)

Show up at a doctor’s office for almost anything whatsoever, these days, and you may be handed a prescription for a literal poison. We are being brainwashed through advertising to the public, and doctors are being indoctrination into believing, that only the products of pharmaceutical companies can help us when we don’t feel the way that we want to. But these products don’t really help, any more than alcohol, tobacco, or overeating do.

Mental pain passes with time, with emotional support and understanding, and with love – even the placebo effect is a form of self-healing.

The damage that pharmaceutical drugs do doesn’t.

“Hugs, Not Drugs” includes psychiatric drugs, people.

When you are anxious or agitated, change your life – self-empower.

When you are sad, cry. You’ll feel better.

Depression is repression. Unrepress.

But if you are offered a psychotropic medication by a doctor, refuse it. Don’t give away your body and your mind to damaging substances that won’t help you in the long run, but make you feel worse.

Forever.

 
Resources:

Empathetic Therapy
Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy, Education & Living
Dr. Peter R. Breggin
Psychiatrist

Psychiatric Drug Facts
Dr. Peter R. Breggin
Psychiatrist

Toxic Psychiatry
Dr. Peter R. Breggin
Psychiatrist

Psychiatric Drugs and Your Child
Dr. Peter Breggin
Psychiatrist

Coercion, Involuntary Treatment, Ethics
Dr. Peter R. Breggin

Behaviorism and Mental Health
An Alternative Perspective on Mental Disorders

Dr. Philip Hickey
Psychologist

Dr. David Healy
Psychiatrist, Psychopharmacologist, Scientist, Author

Mad in AmericaPsychology Today (blog)
WebsiteFacebook
Robert Whitaker
Journalist and Author

The Natural Child Project

 
Books:

On Psychiatry and Psychoactive Pharmaceuticals here.

On Child Psychology here.

On Adult Psychology here.

 
Articles:

Neuroleptics and Brain Shrinkage
Philip Hickey, Behaviorism and Mental Health (blog), June 29, 2013

Doctors Not Informed of Harmful Effects of Medicines During Sales Visits
Science Daily, April 10, 2013

The Psycho-Therapeutic School System: Pathologizing Childhood
John Whitehead, Belgrade News, April 9, 2013

Be Skeptical of Pharmaceutical Company Claims
Dr. Peter R. Breggin, Huffington Post, April 7, 2013

Never Again! The Real History of Psychiatry
Peter Breggin, Natural News (blog), March 19, 2013

Antipsychotics Associated with White-Matter Reduction
Mad in America, March 5, 2013

Anti-DSM Sentiment Rises in France
Why French Psychiatrists and Psychoanalysts are Opposed to the Diagnostic Manual

Christopher Lane, Ph.D., Psychology Today, September 28, 2012

Part 1 – The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?
Marcia Angell, The New York Times, June 23, 2011

Part 2 – The Illusions of Psychiatry
Marcia Angell, The New York Times, July 14, 2011

“The biggest mistake I ever made was going to see a psychiatrist” – Stevie Nicks
Monica Cassani, Beyond Meds, May 3, 2011

7 Things To Expect When Getting off Zoloft
Sean McNally, The Awl, May 19, 2010

The Depressing News About Antidepressants
“Studies suggest that the popular drugs are no more effective than a placebo.
In fact, they may be worse.”
Sharon Begley, Newsweek, January 28, 2010

Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
Marcia Angell, The New York Times, January 15, 2009

Your Dangerous Drugstore
Marcia Angell, The New York Times, June 8, 2006

Violence and Suicide Caused by Antidepressants Report to the FDA
Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Psychiatric Drug Facts (blog), August 23, 2004

Court Finds Prozac and Xanax Cause Criminal Conduct
Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Psychiatric Drug Facts (blog), undated

 


 
© 2013 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not republish without permission.
 
Last Updated: July 20, 2013
 
Find my book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.

See my profile at LinkedIn.  View Cathi Carol's profile on LinkedIn

Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.

Thank you!
 

“A New Model of the Universe”

In Excerpts, Recommendations, Spirituality on March 24, 2012 at 4:59 pm

"Into the Light" by AlicePopkorn
 

A question put rightly contains the answer in itself.

P. D. Ouspensky

__________

 

A New Model of the Universe
by P. D. Ouspensky

Excerpts from the Chapter:

Experimental Mysticism

 


We live in an entirely unreal, fictitious world, we argue about non-existent ideas, we pursue non-existent aims, invent everything, even ourselves.

In the real world everything was one.

Everything is unified, everything is linked together, everything is explained by something else and in its turn explains another thing. There is nothing separate, that is, nothing that can be named or described separately.

I felt that the separate existence of anything – including myself – was a fiction, something non-existent, impossible.

It began to be felt as the most joyous and radiant sensation that could exist.

I came into contact with myself, with the self which was always within me, which always saw me and always told me something that I could not understand and could not even hear in ordinary states of consciousness. The whole object consisted in being able to hear this voice constantly, in being in constant communication with it.

The being to whom this voice belonged knew everything, understood everything and above all was free from thousands of small and distracting ‘personal’ thoughts and moods. He could take everything calmly, could take everything objectively, as it was in reality. And at the same time this was I.

How this could be so and why in the ordinary state I was so far from myself, if this was I – that I could not explain.

I seemed to understand at that time that all the usual troubles, cares and anxieties are connected with the usual sensation of ‘I,’ result from it, and at the same time, constitute and sustain it. Therefore, when ‘I’ disappeared, all troubles, cares and anxieties disappeared.

When I felt that I did not exist, everything else became very simple and easy. At these moments I even regarded it as strange that we could take upon ourselves so terrible a responsibility as to bring ‘I’ into everything and start from ‘I’ in everything.

In the idea of ‘I,’ in the sensation of ‘I,’ such was we ordinarily have, there was something almost abnormal, a kind of fantastic conceit which bordered on blasphemy, as if each one of us called himself God.

I felt then that only God could call himself ‘I,’ that only God was ‘I.’ But we also call ourselves ‘I’ and do not see and do not notice the irony of it.

They were terrible, these moments of awakening in an unreal world after a real one, in a dead world after a living, in a limited world, cut into small pieces, after an infinite and entire world.
 

 
"A New Model of the Universe" by P. D. Ouspensky

From:

A New Model of the Universe:
Principles of the Psychological Method in Its Application
to Problems of Science, Religion and Art

P. D. Ouspensky. Knopf, 1931.
 
 

Full Text Online
Chapter VIII — Experimental Mysticism
 

Find more books on Spirituality & Psi at my Amazon Bookstore.

 
Related Posts:

See my post category on Spirituality.

 
Photo/Art Credit:

Into the Light by AlicePopkorn

 


 
Last Updated: January 2, 2013
 
More book, movie, and music suggestions can be found at my Amazon store.
 
Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.
 
© 2012 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not republish without permission.
 
Thank you!
 

David Barash and the “Myth” Of Monogamy

In Evolution, Excerpts, Materialism, Misogyny, Science on January 10, 2012 at 4:50 pm

Bird Pair

__________

 

The Trouble with the Evolutionary Sciences

__________

 

Evolutionary psychology leaves the impression that
human nature was carved a hundred thousand years ago,
and then history sort of stopped.

But human nature adapts to the continual flow of information.

Individuals are created by social interaction.

That’s worth remembering next time somebody tells you
we are hardwired to do this or that.

David Brooks

__________

 

Your life is up to you. No one else. And certaily not up to your genes, which are blueprints for proteins, not for your decisions.

Do you want to find a mate, have a successful relationship, and live a happy life? Don’t want to become another statistic, be among the almost 50% of married couples who eventually divorce? Read this post.

Come on. Suck it up. Be willing to expend a little effort – it only takes eye movement – and face some truths for once in your sorry life.

Below is most of the available information on the science of the natural world in regard to sexual selection and mating.

I have extrapolated from and expanded on the popular science, as well, as theory is incomplete and data very often misinterpreted even by the scientists doing the work – that is to say, evolutionary biologists and psychologists, who get much of this wrong due to their wrong scientific foundationalism (materialism) and their wrong cultural biases (toward male “superiority” over women – if you want a lasting relationship, you each must treat the other as an exact equal).

Take a deep breath. Get a cold drink (that is not alcoholic, if that was your first instinct, or you won’t be able to think properly. A water, a hot chocolate, or a homemade lemonade would do). Stretch. Go to the bathroom. Then sit back down and engage your brain on this post. This won’t take long and it won’t hurt much.

OK. Here we go.

During the mating season males court females; the most successful males display their most pleasing appearances and engage in behaviors calculated to woo females into mating with them.

For males, there’s more to mating than hanging around looking handsome and hoping; males must also prove their desire and fitness to successfully bond, mate, and raise young with the female of their choice.

Females watch the displays and are titillated or bored, and decide which male or males to mate with if any. Females are receptive to the “best” displays, of course, but often end up mating with the male most interested in mating with her, the one who shows the most interest, who tries the hardest to win her selection (as this demonstrates, in the male, viability as a member of a pair bond, to the female).

(Males take note of what works for other males in attracting, bonding to, and mating with females and copy and spread these behaviors; in essence, that is how the “best” displays become the best. However, contrary to popular scientific belief, there is no DNA-driven determinism in regard to the displays; they become matters of habit, and can change over time.)

Unwanted males are warned off by female disinterest, or if a male is persistent and a female has to resort to it, by her turning away, leaving the vicinity, even, if eventually necessary, by growling, scratching, or biting to drive the male away.

It behooves males to pay attention to female warnings that they are undesired and to turn their attentions as soon as possible to other females who may be more receptive to them. Fighting disinterest just makes both of the individuals unhappy, wasting their time, ruffling feathers and messing up fur, and both may miss opportunities for better matings.

Regular and continued male harassment of females will actually cause females to change their DNA in order to escape male notice (my theory. Human male researchers may rationalize and misinterpret this behavior as “good”; few of them realize that changing one’s DNA is behavior and not random.)

During the non-mating seasons of the year, which is the majority of the year, males do not court females and females do not select males and breed with them. Males help to build nests and/or to raise the young. Or the sexes separate and the males woo and the females choose new mates the following year.

Males and females often lose interest in sex when they are gestating and preparing for their young (humans will be addressed below, but it’s worth noting here my theory that in the case of humans, when women are taking contraceptive hormones which mimic pregnancy, such as “the Pill”, the odd combination of hormones in their bodies often causes them to become both more interested in becoming pregnant and having a child and less interested having in sex than when not on the exogenous hormones; the influence of hormones on interest in sex and child bearing may become more evident over time – in the case of men, as well, if a male hormonal contraceptive ever becomes viable).

Each species is slightly different in these regards. Humans, for instance, do not have mating “seasons”, but mate year round.

Year-round mating in humans most likely evolved in order to initiate and maintain deep and lasting pair bonds that provide long-term stable nests for the raising of offspring to full grown adulthood physically and mentally, which requires an extremely long period of time in humans, usually two to three decades.

The success of human offspring depends almost entirely on, and is most efficient and successful when conducted by, a closely bonded, emotionally suited, perennially-mated pair; the longer the parental pair bond lasts (and this depends on their treating each other with love, kindness, and support as equals in the pair bond, and the offspring with the same careful tending and respect), the more successful the offspring.

Therefore, the best sexual strategy for humans is (and remember, this is science talking; no political or religious agenda is implied or endorsed by me):

If you are a man and wish a happy marriage with lots of sex, never stop courting the woman who chose you to mate with.

If you are unwilling to do more than your share of work to keep up the nest, if you start being a slob in appearance, if you stop wooing your female with assertions of love and romantic gestures, if you treat her with disrespect as an equal member of your pair bond, if you’re still too immature and more attached and loyal to your parents and home or the fellows in your peer group(s) than to your own mate and your own home, or if you lose interest in your mate, she will start looking around for someone else to love her and to mate with her.

If you are a woman, don’t withhold sex because you are tired, or distracted, or want to manipulate a man into doing something. That is not only unfair, it is unnatural. Pretty much, unless he’s wearing you out or you are biologically incapable (and sometimes sex for either member of the pair bond is impossible and should be understood and waited out; in some extreme cases it can even be even foregone, but that is risky), never say no.

Don’t fall for the common cultural fallacy that women are supposed to be “designated sexual gatekeepers… charged with controlling men’s sexuality.” That’s how wives get left for someone else (often a second wife smarter about men’s sexuality), and marriages end. (This is true for men who withhold sex from their partners, or are unable to perform, as well.)

If, however, he has not continued wooing you, has treated you with disrespect, has not made you and your pair bond the top priority in his life, or has abused you or his privileges and responsibilities as a member of your pair bond, you may say no with impunity, scientifically speaking; you may even consider leaving the relationship, or actually leave it. That would be his fault, not yours, scientifically speaking.

Love and kindness, sex and work, equality and support are the keys, the absolute minimums, to the happiness and success of any pair bond – in the case of humans, of any long-term relationship.

Women’s and men’s minds and bodies are 99.9% the same. Both women and men want sex, love, and marriage to the same degree and, in reality, in the same amounts. That’s science. If it were not so, it would be impossible for the human animal to maintain a happy and successful pair bond and to raise children to have the capacity to maintain happy and successful pair bonds, yet the majority do.

For those who don’t, how to be get these things, and how to be happy once you have found them, have been the problem – but the problems have been cultural and the result of wrong thinking, not a result of the scientific evolution of human beings.

Many men are conditioned by their cultures to believe that they can slack off on courtship during marriage and still expect plenty of sex from their wives.

Or expect the woman to do all the work to keep up the nest and still have a happy, contented mate in her.

Or think that they can have outside sexual and/or primary emotional relationships and still not lose their mate. (Or that if they start to lose her, that they are entitled to protest by attacking her verbally, emotionally, or even physically, none of which work and merely drive her away further and faster.)

Many women are culturally conditioned, as mentioned above, to be coy with sex, to withhold it sometimes, or to believe that they have the right to determine a sex schedule, for instance. (Again, this is unnatural; scientifically speaking, of course.)

Or that criticizing their mate to others, as a matter of course, is acceptable behavior.

Or that not continuing to be alluring sexually won’t drive him to look for that allure, so innate a need.

Sex is one of the most powerful motivators in the world – most animals, including humans, will give up food, water, shelter, and even their lives (or risk their livelihoods, in the case of humans) to obtain it.

Try hard to do the scientific thing in your pair bond. Do what is natural, scientifically. It will probably work, unless you or your mate has been too warped by false cultural beliefs to know how to behave appropriately, scientifically.

If you’ve come to this page looking for scientific rationalizations or support for cheating on a partner, the science is against that.

Cheating always leads to great disruption in and generally dissolution of a pair bond. Ask almost anyone what the first thing is that they look for in a mate and the top answer is faithfulness, loyalty, fastidiousness.

Do not cheat. Ever. It is one of the most callous, cruel, and painful things you can do to another human being. Don’t be that selfish. Refuse to be that dishonest. Decide not to be that disrespectful.

Grow up, instead. Get some balls and teach yourself honesty, empathy, maturity, and responsibility toward your partner, if your own parents failed you by not teaching these incredibly important things to you as you were growing up.

Cheating doesn’t just hurt your partner, and it doesn’t just hurt the person you cheat with – it hurts you.

Cheating cheats you. It takes away from you.

There is nothing hotter – or happier – than fidelity.

That’s the science.

“Married” is like no other state of being. Marriage, an almost uniquely human institution, is not just for making human babies, it is also for making human happiness.

(The majority of heterosexuals support homosexual marriage on these grounds. Every human being has the innate right to this form of human happiness.

Regarding the religious arguments against it, I can’t imagine a loving God having a problem with adding more love to the world. Adding more love and happiness to the world does not “threaten” anyone else’s, but makes one’s own more secure. I would say that God is in favor of marriage for any two people in love, if they wish it, regardless of sexual orientation or phenotypy – and there are not just two, but many.

Secularly, some people worry that granting the right to anyone in love to marry will lead to the abuse of marriage. Multiple partner marriage, for instance, is inherently abusive to all of the parties involved. However, same-sex marriage is not. Two-person marriage is the most stable and happy arrangement for people of any sexual orientation.)

One does not have to give in to cultural or peer pressure to believe that cheating is “natural”. It might be better to think in a more truly “evolutionary” manner – your own evolution and the evolution of our species, your own happiness and the happiness of our species as a whole, one based on actually scientific, instead of pseudoscientific, proof – which always shows, basically, that loving thought and behavior work, and that unloving thought and behavior don’t work.

That is what is evolutionary.

One finds through experience, of course, one’s own convincing rationales for fidelity. Love, happiness, even bliss are to be found at their peak in a mutually loving, kind, supportive, equal, monogamous relationship. David and Judith Barash did.

David P. Barash is an evolutionary biologist and psychologist at the University of Washington, my alma mater, who has written several fascinating books on the subject with clinical psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton, his wife.

The Barashes, as evolutionary psychologists, are all over what they perceive as the “unnaturalness” of monogamy in the natural world; they provide evidence of cheating in many species, overlooking the fact that most of it is considered undesirable and leads to disruption in the pair bond. They conclude, however, correctly, that human beings can, and should, be monogamous.

They don’t cite genetics, morality, or religion as reasons for human fidelity. They conclude scientifically that human happiness is increased by it. That is where they differ from many other evolutionary psychologists, who stop studying pair bonding at an inappropriate, incomplete, and shallow-thinking (culturally-biased) juncture.

In their book The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People the Barashes discuss their conclusion.

It is a surprising one because evolutionary biologists and psychologists today generally believe that that our genes, which are made out of DNA, drive us to be “selfish”, or even “mean”. That is not only incorrect but impossible for the success and advancement of a species’ evolution, of course, but that’s what they believe.

Belief in the “selfish” gene not only is anti-scientific, it is absurd on the face of it. DNA codes for the proteins of the cells; DNA doesn’t, and can’t, code for feelings, behaviors, or actions.

No matter what materialist scientists still believe (and tell the news media) feelings, behaviors, and actions are of the mind, and therefore are under individual control.

The truth is that today’s materialist scientists, including evolutionary scientists and neurologists, in their zeal to protect the old cult of materialism, ignore modern proven science.

We as a culture have bought some evolutionists’ “selfishness” theories about dating and mating, because self-involvement, selfishness, and self-serving behavior is often what we see happening around us, and what most evolutionists believe they see happening around us culturally is what they have build their theories on. Evolutionary science is built on circular reasoning.

It is hard to build a science based on what you imagine was happening to people – and how they reacted – hundreds of thousands of years ago. As it stands, most of evolutionary psychology is illogical, shallow, and self-fulfilling.

In particular, evolutionary science as applied to human behavior doesn’t look at how people really feel and think, or how they really felt and thought tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago, since they conjecture even about that.

Worse, most of it doesn’t address what people could or should do in order to increase their own happiness today, which, of course, would automatically increase the success and survival of the species in the future.

 
Related Posts:

In 2013 Gerald Rogers posted similar advice from a regretful divorced man’s point of view. (Read and learn, so you don’t become divorced and regretful, too.)

Marriage Advice I Wish I Would Have Had
Gerald Rogers, Facebook

Marriage Advice From This Divorced Man Is A Must-Read
Huffington Post, August 23, 2013

I Recommend: The Oeuvre of Lundy Bancroft
December 2, 2013

Soon? Time.
February 28, 2013

Science, Math, Men, Women
April 10, 2012

Gullible Scientists
January 8, 2012

Orders of Difficulty
July 8, 2011

The Non-Irony of Slutwalks
August 12, 2011

Evolutionary Biology/Psychology and the So-Called Genetic Adaptiveness of Rape
February 12, 2011

Also see my post categories Evolution, Misogyny, and Materialism.

 
Evolutionary Psychology/Biology:

Today’s evolutionary psychology is a materialist pseudoscience based on false scientific premises and on wrong assumptions about human nature which support today’s cultural, not evolutionary, bias toward male superiority (and entitlement) over women.

The fact is that sexual desire, sexual activity, and sexual jealousy are biologically inherent in both men and women (or perhaps it would be better to say all genders of human being) to the same degree equally. There is far more individual variation than variation across the sexes.

The few books available that get evolutionary psychology right (equating the genders) have been written by those rare psychologists who have spent most of their careers talking to men and women about their relationships, how they really feel, and what works and what doesn’t to maintain a happy and successful pair bond – and then have not applied cultural bias to their findings (such as “co-dependence”) or made-up theories (such as the “Mars/Venus” dichotomy).

Examples of Good Science:

Should I Stay or Should I Go?
A Guide to Knowing if Your Relationship Can – and Should – Be Saved

Lundy Bancroft and JAC Patrissi. Berkley Trade, 2011 (book).
- Bancroft and Patrissi provide a far more realistic view of our evolutionary past than most academic evolutionary psychologists. Bancroft just can’t be beat.

Attached:
The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find and Keep Love

Amir Levine, Rachel Heller. Tarcher, 2010 (book). (Kindle)
- Levine and Heller flounder a bit, generalize far too much, and are sometimes very unprofessional in their personal remarks, but their scientific basics are generally sound.

Books that get evolutionary psychology wrong usually were written by materialist (a scientifically out-of-date philosophy) academics who have spent little of their careers actually talking to people; their studies and conclusions are based on and skewed in favor of both their scientific and their cultural biases and preconceptions.

For instance, they usually conclude that men both desire and engage in more sexual activity than women (wrong; this is reporting error, and if scientists thought about it they would realize that it wouldn’t even be possible), that sexual promiscuity is not only natural but desirable (wrong; even apes, chimpanzees, birds, and other animals get jealous and fight to keep their pairings monogamous), and that pair bonding and monogamy are unnatural, undesirable, and anti-evolutionary (wrong, wrong, and wrong, scientifically speaking).

Unfortunately, such thinking is exemplary of the state of the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology today; worse, evolutionary scientists who engage in such culturally-approved thinking are the ones who get reported upon (and fawned over) in the news media.

Examples of Bad Science:

The Myth of Monogamy
Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People

David P. Barash Ph.D. and Judith Eve Lipton. W. H. Freeman, 2001 (book).

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. HarperCollins, 2010 (book).

Mean Genes
From Sex to Money to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts
Chapter One at The New York Times (book chapter)
Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan, Perseus Publishing, 2001

Book Review: “Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food, Taming Our Primal Instincts” by Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan
Damian Moskovitz, Atlas Society, October 2001 (book review).

Our Big Brains Can Overcome Our Selfish Genes
Richard Dawkins
From a lecture by Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Understanding of Science, given at the Royal Institution, in London, 12 February 2002.
Posted by Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science,
Oxford University, at The Conversation website.

Under “bad science” there are also the following articles, which are very confused on the science and contain the typical bad advice of reporters not up on the science:

Bad Advice for Cheated Wives
A former escort turned “infidelity counselor” tells women to give their husbands more sex. It’s not the answer.

Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon, April 16, 2013
- Salon’s “sex reporter” writes that “having lots of sex with your husband” is “pedestrian, misguided” advice. She’s wrong. Her parents were right (and so is the woman she writes about, who has listened to the complaints of 1,000 men) that “sex is the glue that holds a marriage together”. Clark-Flory cites only the cultural / evolutionary psychology fallacy that women are, or should be, the “sexual gate-keepers” in a relationship (I shudder for the women who believe this, and the futures of their marriages). Clark-Flory is woefully undereducated about what she writes about; a problem with many reporters, but she can do better (in fact, I list another article of hers in the Resources section below).

I’m Just a Jealous Guy
Carole Jahme shines the cold light of evolutionary psychology on readers’ problems.
This week: Sexual Jealousy.

Carole Jahme, The Guardian, July 6, 2010
- An awful example of how the utter wrongness of bad “evolutionary psychology/biology” has infiltrated the news media and general public opinion. Shame on anyone who promotes such misogynistic wrong thinking.

 
Evolutionary Psychology/Biology:

Today’s evolutionary psychology is a materialist pseudoscience based on false scientific premises and on wrong assumptions about human nature which support today’s cultural, not evolutionary, bias toward male superiority (and entitlement) over women.

The fact is that sexual desire, sexual activity, and sexual jealousy are biologically inherent in both men and women (or perhaps it would be better to say all genders of human being) to the same degree equally. There is far more individual variation than variation across the sexes.

The few books available that get evolutionary psychology right (equating the genders) have been written by those rare psychologists who have spent most of their careers talking to men and women about their relationships, how they really feel, and what works and what doesn’t to maintain a happy and successful pair bond – and then have not applied cultural bias to their findings (such as “co-dependence”) or made-up theories (such as the “Mars/Venus” dichotomy).

Examples of Good Science:

Should I Stay or Should I Go?
A Guide to Knowing if Your Relationship Can – and Should – Be Saved

Lundy Bancroft and JAC Patrissi. Berkley Trade, 2011 (book).
- Bancroft and Patrissi provide a far more realistic view of our evolutionary past than most academic evolutionary psychologists. Bancroft just can’t be beat.

Attached:
The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find and Keep Love

Amir Levine, Rachel Heller. Tarcher, 2010 (book). (Kindle)
- Levine and Heller flounder a bit, generalize far too much, and are sometimes very unprofessional in their personal remarks, but their scientific basics are generally sound.

Books that get evolutionary psychology wrong usually were written by materialist (a scientifically out-of-date philosophy) academics who have spent little of their careers actually talking to people; their studies and conclusions are based on and skewed in favor of both their scientific and their cultural biases and preconceptions.

For instance, they usually conclude that men both desire and engage in more sexual activity than women (wrong; this is reporting error, and if scientists thought about it they would realize that it wouldn’t even be possible), that sexual promiscuity is not only natural but desirable (wrong; even apes, chimpanzees, birds, and other animals get jealous and fight to keep their pairings monogamous), and that pair bonding and monogamy are unnatural, undesirable, and anti-evolutionary (wrong, wrong, and wrong, scientifically speaking).

Unfortunately, such thinking is exemplary of the state of the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology today; worse, evolutionary scientists who engage in such culturally-approved thinking are the ones who get reported upon (and fawned over) in the news media.

Examples of Bad Science:

The Myth of Monogamy
Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People

David P. Barash Ph.D. and Judith Eve Lipton. W. H. Freeman, 2001 (book).

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. HarperCollins, 2010 (book).

Mean Genes
From Sex to Money to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts
Chapter One at The New York Times (book chapter)
Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan, Perseus Publishing, 2001

Book Review: “Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food, Taming Our Primal Instincts” by Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan
Damian Moskovitz, Atlas Society, October 2001 (book review).

Our Big Brains Can Overcome Our Selfish Genes
Richard Dawkins
From a lecture by Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Understanding of Science, given at the Royal Institution, in London, 12 February 2002.
Posted by Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science,
Oxford University, at The Conversation website.

Under “bad science” there are also the following articles, which are very confused on the science and contain the typical bad advice of reporters not up on the science:

Bad Advice for Cheated Wives
A former escort turned “infidelity counselor” tells women to give their husbands more sex. It’s not the answer.

Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon, April 16, 2013
Yes, it is. Or, rather I should say, it can prevent many problems in marriage which wouldn’t otherwise have occurred. Salon’s “sex reporter” writes that “having lots of sex with your husband” is “pedestrian, misguided” advice: she’s wrong. Her parents were right (and so is the woman she writes about, who has listened to the complaints of 1,000 men) that “sex is the glue that holds a marriage together”. Clark-Flory cites only the cultural / evolutionary psychology fallacy: that women are, or should be, the “sexual gate-keepers” in a relationship (I shudder for the women who believe this, and the futures of their marriages). Clark-Flory is woefully undereducated about what she writes about; a problem with many reporters, but she can do better (in fact, I list another article of hers in the Resources section below).

I’m Just a Jealous Guy
Carole Jahme shines the cold light of evolutionary psychology on readers’ problems.
This week: Sexual Jealousy.

Carole Jahme, The Guardian, July 6, 2010
- An awful example of how the utter wrongness of bad “evolutionary psychology/biology” has infiltrated the news media and general public opinion. Shame on anyone who promotes such misogynistic wrong thinking.

 
Resources:

Selfish Gene Theory Of Evolution Called Fatally Flawed
Y. Bar-Yam, Formalizing the gene centered view of evolution, Advances in Complex Systems 2, pp.277-281 (1999).

Back to the Stone Age
Two strong believers in evolutionary psychology tell us how we can live better lives.

Erica Goode, The New York Times, December 31, 2000

Male sexual polymorphism, alternative reproductive tactics, and androgens in combtooth blennies (pisces: blenniidae).
Oliveira RF, Canario AV, Grober MS. Horm Behav. 2001 Sep;40(2):266-75.

Sexual Behavior in Pre Contact Hawai‘i: A Sexological Ethnography
Milton Diamond, Ph.D., Revista Española del Pacifico. 2004. 16: 37-58

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis, PLoS, August 30, 2005

Female Sexual Polymorphism and Fecundity Consequences of Male Mating Harassment in the Wild
Thomas P. Gosden and Erik I. Svensson, PLoS, June 27, 2007
Citation: Gosden TP, Svensson EI (2007) Female Sexual Polymorphism and Fecundity Consequences of Male Mating Harassment in the Wild. PLoS ONE 2(6): e580. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000580

They Don’t Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species — and individual races — have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.

Kathleen McAuliffe, Discover Magazine, February 9, 2009

Are we witnessing the end of science?
Almost all the great revolutions in scientific thinking may be behind us,
but the way modern science is conducted stifles radical new ideas

Ehsan Masood, The Guardian, June 22, 2009

Human Nature Today
David Brooks, The New York Times, June 25, 2009
- “Evolutionary psychology leaves the impression that human nature was carved a hundred thousand years ago, and then history sort of stopped. But human nature adapts to the continual flow of information … Individuals aren’t formed before they enter society. Individuals are created by social interaction. … There’s no escaping context. That’s worth remembering next time somebody tells you we are hardwired to do this or that.”

Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around?
The fault, dear Darwin, lies not in our ancestors, but in ourselves.

Sharon Begley, Newsweek, June 29, 2009 (Republished at The Daily Beast)
- A highly intelligent smackdown, um, analysis of evolutionary psych/bio. There was much opposition to this article among evolutionary “scientists” (or perhaps mostly sensationalistic journalists), of course.

Questioning Evolutionary Psychology
Recently, the doubts and questions plaguing the theory of evolutionary psychology
have boiled up to the mainstream press.

Christie Nicholson, Scientific American, July 17, 2009 (notes and podcast)
- Scientific American is not the most up-to-date or reliable resource in general, however.

Skipping Spouse to Spouse Isn’t Just a Man’s Game
Natalie Angier, The New York Times, August 31, 2009
- “Evolutionary psychology” alternative hypotheses.

Why Do Women Have Sex? For the Same Reasons Men Do.
Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon, October 5, 2009

Beyond the Genome
Brandon Keim, Wired, October 7, 2009

Pink Brain, Blue Brain
Claims of Sex Differences Fall Apart

Sharon Begley, Newsweek, September 3, 2009 (Republished at The Daily Beast)

Another Darwinian Fairy Tale Gives Us Old Time Religion in our Jeans.
Or Was That Genes?

Marc Jampole, OpEdge (blog), November 17, 2009

What Do Pleistocene Hunters Have to Do with Poker Anyway?
Absolutely Nothing, Mr. McManus.

Marc Jampole, OpEdge (blog), December 22, 2009

Tiger Woods’ Adultery: The Scientific Defense
A new book argues that dudes just can’t help chasing tail. Give me a break!

Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, March 25, 2010

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
David H. Freedman, The Atlantic, November 2010
- “Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors — to a striking extent — still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.”

Do Humans Prefer Free Love Over the Bonds of Nuclear Family?
Maia Szalavitz, Time – Healthland, November 2, 2010
- No. At least no one in his or her right mind, independently, uninfluenced by cultural pressures to “conform” to counterculturalism.

The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories
Eric Berger, Houston Chronicle, November 24, 2010
- Note that none of the new theories which replaced the old are any “truer”, and will be replaced in their turn; that science is “better” today than in the past is debatable to completely untrue. Or perhaps some of the older theories (especially those not as ancient and thoroughly discredited as those presented in this article – the operative words here are “eventually discarded” – which can take centuries) will be revived in new forms. That happens a lot, too.

A Roomful of Yearning and Regret
Wendy Plump, The New York Times, December 9, 2010
- What it’s like to cheat and to be cheated on.

Nice Guys Finish First
David Brooks, The New York Times, May 16, 2011

Scientist Tim Flannery Ties Darwinian Myths to Politics of Selfishness
and Myth of Free Markets

Marc Jampole, OpEdge (blog), May 19, 2011

Double Inanity
Twin Studies are Pretty Much Useless

Brian Palmer, Slate, August 24, 2011
- Palmer still believes in the “promissory” science, though, unaccountably.

Men Aren’t Funnier Than Women, but We’ll Keep Pretending They Are
A new study says the female funny bone is equal to the male,
even if it’s not perceived to be.

Amanda Marcotte, Slate, October 20, 2011
- Women are as funny as men. And as smart. Period. End of story.

Steven Pinker’s Book is a Comfort Blanket for the Smug
Andrew Brown, The Guardian, November 8, 2011
- “The factual errors in The Better Angels of Our Nature destroy Pinker’s thesis, rendering it no more than a bedtime story.”

Women’s Progress Marches Backward
Whether you look at job stats or the pay gap, at the movie awards or Sunday morning TV,
it’s been a rough 2011

Irin Carmon, Salon, December 19, 2011
- Why?: 1) The outsized influence over news media, and therefore society, of reactionary fundamentalist religious protest due to their misunderstanding of God’s will regarding what are actually human cultural taboos, 2) evolutionary “science”, which, with little to no actual science to uphold them, remains biased toward those taboos, and 3) women’s reluctance to respond to, fight against, and protest those taboos in public and private – due to those very taboos.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, Noted Psychiatrist, Apologizes for Study on Gay ‘Cure’
Benedict Carey, The New York Times, May 18, 2012
- It isn’t just women who suffer from misguided “science”, of course. See below, also.

Regretting the Gay Cure
Psychologist Robert Spitzer has more to be sorry for.

Katie Roiphe, Slate, May 22, 2012

Good Scientist! You Get a Badge.
Precious research money is wasted on unreal results,
but we can change the culture of science.

Carl Zimmer, Slate, August 14, 2012

The Brain Chemistry of Social and Sexual Monogamy
Brian Alexander and Larry Young, Slate, November 27, 2012
- This article makes a couple of good points on this topic that most get wrong – an important one being that the powerful cheat at the same rate as the not-powerful (rather than more), and for the same reasons as the not-powerful (rather than different ones). I’ve been pointing that out forever. However, like most articles it is a mixture of the true and the false. The authors still assume that brain chemicals that somehow spontaneously appear in the brain not just influence but can control behavior. That is false. Thinking – thought – mental activity, generated by consciousness using free will, directs all behavior, period. Brain chemicals are generated according to conscious (or subconscious) thought to set up a physiological response, but the thinker is still in control of his or her behavior at all times, regardless of his or her brain chemicals or physiological response. (Think about it and you’ll conclude that this is true, if you can get over the false materialist beliefs that have been sold to society by wrong-thinking scientists.) As well, comparing primate behavior to voles or other critters is dangerously unscientific. Humans in particular can easily maintain or increase the desire, the sex, and the attachment in a relationship, if the relationship is rewarding and the motivation strong. It’s all about choice. (Note: I replaced the non-sequitur titles for this article generated by some Slate title writer with the article authors’ title – still misleading, but better.)

Generation LGBTQIA
Michael Schulman, The New York Times, January 9, 2013

Darwin Was Wrong About Dating
Dan Slater, The New York Times, January 12, 2013
- Reporters turn to the widely-quoted evolutionary scientist Steven Pinker as a so-called “authority”, but he’s an infamous (to me) hard materialist, and an out-of-date scientific resource. He is often looked at askance, viewed with suspicion and concern, as misguided from within even some of the scientific community.

Science: A Relationship You May Not Understand
Tania Lombrozo, NPR, February 25, 2013
- Terrifically condescending, Lombrozo discounts current scientific method while she also retains unaccountable faith in it. Strange.

Sympatric Speciation – Wikipedia

 


 
© 2013 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not republish without permission.
 
Last Updated: August 25, 2013
 
Find my book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.

See my profile at LinkedIn.  View Cathi Carol's profile on LinkedIn

Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.

Thank you!
 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers

%d bloggers like this: