Tom Vizzini wrote in news:3cOdnZq7BM7sp_nbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@
adelphia.com:
>
> "Speeding"
biz.org> wrote in message
> news:avW8i.357381$JN6.293894@newsfe17.phx...>>>
>>> Nope....natural selection would have bred that out because those
>>> who did not approach would not reproduce.
>>
>> No. I can't agree this would be true. Homosexuality should also then
>> have been bred out by natural selection. But it hasn't been. What
>> would have happened, though, I would think, is that natural selectin
>> would lead to breeding lines where there would be entire generations
>> of people that are more predilected toward approaching and
>> generations that are not. And, not too surprisingly, that does seem
>> to hold true.
>
> Invalid comapison. Try again
Try again? Calm down...
Can you explain why you feel it's an invalid comparison? There are many gentic defects that would and
should have otherwise been bred out by natural selection. But, natural selection doesn't really apply to
humans. Even in this day and age, there are plenty of men that do not even NEED social skills or
approach skills in order to mate. Their mating selection is done for them at birth. But, the fear of
approach would still remain... since even now, approaching a woman, in some cultures, can result in
severe punishment.
>>> I agree that a lot of guys have fear. 99%% of the time it has
>>> nothing to do with women. They are not assertive in many area of
>>> their lives.
>>
>> Exactly. There are some people that are assertive, but they are
>> assertive in all aspects of their life. As a whole, though, even non
>> assertive
> people
>> are able to reproduce. Natural selection is not really a factor in
>> the survival of Homo Sapiens. People that require glasses are able to
>> survive and reproduce. People that require insulin can survive and
>> reproduce. Many genetic factors that, in other species, would lead to
>> natural selection,
> in
>> humans, are overcome. I think that's also true for approach anxiety.
>
> You are so far off you are not even wrong. genetics has become the
> excuse of the weak for everything from smoking to drinking to
> depression.
How is this about right or wrong? You seem to be defensive about this...
There is evidence, medical evidence, that addictive tendancies likely have a genetic marker. That there
is a gene that predisposes some people towards addictive tendacy, just as there are gentic markers that
predisposes people toward baldness, diabetes, or even obesity.
Now, I'm not talking about the philosophy behind whether a guy that eats too much and uses too much
sugar is genetically or behaviorally responsible for getting diabetes. (though I now use Splenda!) All
I'm saying it that there are indeed very likely genetic tendancies towards certain traits otherwise once
thought to be strictly behavioral. I do not care if criminal tendancy or addictive behavior is "wrong"
or if it is something that should be "excuses" for the gentic cause... all I'm saying is that there is
hard research that shows there are indeed genetic markers that can be correlated to this.
I have no care if someone is bald because their combed their hair to much or if it was due to their
genes. Or if they are addicted to crank because they are "bad" or just physically defective. All I care
about is if there are means to prevent, cure, or remedy the situation. Excuses or blame do not concern
me. Only results.
> maybe you can tell me what specific gene you are referring to?
No. But I'm not a genetic researcher. Why would you ask me a question about genetics? I would direct
such a question to the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. I'm sure there are many
other fine institutions you could go to for more information, but Wash U has an excellent program, or so
I understand.
>>> Exactly. The more fear the less choice. The more choice the less
>>> fear.
>>
>> But then this means that the fear must be somehow reduced,
>> surpressed, or otherwise dealt with, in order to allow those choices.
>
> Nope not at all. Reduction and supression are old concepts that the
> self help gurus have tried to use for years. They just don't work.
I tend to agree, but again, I'm not concerned with the methods, claims, or actions.. only the results.
> Is there a means by
>> which the level of fear could be overriding, and yet still allow for
>> maximum choice to take place?
>
> No....When fear is overriding there s no choice.
Okay. So, so when the fear is too powerful, 3D Mind fails. Oh well. No biggie. I haven't found any other
products that can overcome powerful limiters either. This means, I believe I understand, that as fear
(or pain) becomes more and more powerful, reason and ability to choose an action is reduced. Eventually,
choice would be limited by powerful emotions acting against it... then, it becomes a matter of
determining at which point the fear (or pain or both) get to a point so powerful that the logical mind
stop acting and the reactionary mind takes over. Using a Dune reference... I'm looking for my personal
Gom Jabar test... the point where I can not control my reaction to fear, pain, or other emotions.
>>> OK here is the difference in philosphy. There is no over riding of
>>> emotion. There is balancing of emotion that allows a balanced
>>> response to an event rather than an automated response that is a
>>> reaction and has no choice.
>>
>> Even to balance it... if I could hold my hand to an open flame and do
>> so with the response to pain and fear... that would be a very
>> powerful and useful ability to be able to acquire. I don't think it
>> would matter that the pain and fear is balanced, surpressed, or
>> what... if I am able to achieve that result.
>
> I am not sure what this would prove.
It would prove the level of mental mastery over physical response I can achieve. If I can control my
physical reaction to the sensation of heat... I can control it to other sensations, such as cold... lack
of air... hunger... pain... or even to other emotions, such as rage, guilt, love, lust, or just about
any other kind of emotion. Some people test their limits by breaking boards. Some by feats of athletic
prowess, some by remaining in sensory depravation tanks, or underwater. I test my limits by the control
of physical response to emotional stimulation.
> I presented the example of holding your hand to fire.
>> But, another great example is holding your breath until
>> unconsciousness results. The natural response is to breath in, even
>> underwater.. and to do so in only a few seconds, perhaps a minute or
>> so. But the human body can actually go for many minutes... perhaps as
>> long as thirty.. without a physical need for breath. Can I override
>> the fear of suffucation using the 3d Mind to achive an ability to
>> hold my breath for extended periods of time?
>
> Yes.
To what level could I expect to develop such a control? Would I be able to hold my breath until I lose
consciousness? Is there any limit at all? This would be a remarkable feat of control.
>>> As for poker...that is a different skill wher you suspend reality
>>> and use a professional poker players filter to replace your own.
>>
>> That's the skill set I'm looking for. The ability to control my
>> bodily responses. I'd love to be able to control things like pupil
>> dilation... pulse rate... skin tone/flushing... all sorts of stuff.
>> And with emotional control, that's possible.
>
> Yes.
Even pupil dilation? I could learn, with 3D Mind, to actually control my pupil dilation? If so... where
can I get more information on 3D Mind?
>>> Yes I would say that is definately possible. It depends on what the
>>> problem is. People with a lot of guilt are lousy negotiators.
>>
>> Well, I gave the flame thing and holding my breath as examples. Also,
>> though, being able to control my pupil response would be a massive
>> advantage. Many people consciously or not, look to pupil dilation as
>> a measure of interest and intent. Ditto for skin tone and for other
>> subtle "tells". Being able to control these tells would mean I could
>> control my non-verbal communication just as I would my verbal
>> communication. Such a skill would be extremely valuable.
>
> It is :)
>
>>> Nope...I have to respectfully disagree. Lots of beliefs and desires
>>> were contructed before the 3rd grade. The brain is not even fully
>>> formed and hormones start to generate.
>>
>> This is the same thing some people say about criminal tendancy,
>> homsexuality, and all sorts of behavior. Yet more and more, science
>> is closing the gap on the genetic markers that control such things.
>> If such behaviors are learned, then they can be unlearned. But,
>> that'sa pretty offensive concept to a lot of people that have
>> "behaviors" that they claim might be genetic.
>
> People use all kinds of excuses. That does not make them true.
Truth is subjective, in this condition, I suppose. I do not concern myself with the rehabiltation of
criminals or the morality of conduct. It's no more a concern of mine than the concept of homosexuality
being treatable versus a choice. But, I am very interested in learning more about 3D Mind, since it has
such a powerful ability to allow me the physical control I'd like to obtain.
--
You could be a Cylon and not even know it...
