http://argue.pbwiki.com/ RecentChanges for argue http://argue.pbwiki.com/feedlogo.gif http://pbwiki.com/ PBwiki 1.3.8 support@pbwiki.com http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage "... a year or so after an accident, people with paralyzing spinal cord injuries tend to be, on average, no more or less happy than anyone else." (ibid)
David Llykken and his collaborator Auke Tellegen, ... found that over time the nonnegotiable biological aspects of temperament increased to the point where "it may be that trying to be happier is as futile as trying to be taller and therefore is counterproductive." (ibid)
'"I made a dumb statement in the original article," he tells TIME. "It's clear that we can change our happiness levels widely—up or down." Lykken's revisionist thinking coincides with the view of the positive-psychology movement, which has put a premium on research showing you can raise your level of happiness. For Seligman and like-minded researchers, that involves working on the three components of happiness—getting more pleasure out of life (which can be done by savoring sensory experiences, although, he warns, "you're never go]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:56:11 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage "... a year or so after an accident, people with paralyzing spinal cord injuries tend to be, on average, no more or less happy than anyone else." (ibid)
David Llykken and his collaborator Auke Tellegen, ... found that over time the nonnegotiable biological aspects of temperament increased to the point where "it may be that trying to be happier is as futile as trying to be taller and therefore is counterproductive." (ibid)
or down. down." Lykken's revisionist thinking coincides with the view of the positive-psychology movement, which has put a premium on research showing you can raise your level of happiness. For Seligman and like-minded researchers, that involves working on the three components of happiness—getting more pleasure out of life (which can be done by savoring sensory experiences, although, he warns, "you're never going to make a curmudgeon into a giggly person"), becoming more engaged in what you do and finding ways of making your]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:44:45 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage "... a year or so after an accident, people with paralyzing spinal cord injuries tend to be, on average, no more or less happy than anyone else." (ibid)
David Llykken and his collaborator Auke Tellegen, ... found that over time the nonnegotiable biological aspects of temperament increased to the point where "it may be that trying to be happier is as futile as trying to be taller and therefore is counterproductive." (ibid)
"The'"I made a dumb statement in the original article," he tells TIME. "It's clear that we can change our happiness levels widely—up or down. Lykken's revisionist thinking coincides with the view<]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:43:49 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage "We are often quite poor at predicting what will make us happy in the future for two reasons. First, we have been given a lot of disinformation about happiness by two sources: Genes and culture. Both genes and cultures are self-perpetuating entities that need us to do things for them so that they can survive. Because we are interested in our own happiness and not theirs, both entities fool us into believing that's what is good for them is also good for us. We believe that having children will make us happy, that consuming goods and services will make us happy. But the data show that money has minor and rapidly diminishing effects on happiness, and that parents are generally happier watching TV or doing housework than interacting with their children." (ibid)
"You may think that it would be good to feel happy at all times, but we have a word for animals that never feel distress, anxiety, fear, and pain: That word is dinner. Negative emotions have important roles to play in our lives because ]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:23:26 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage "People often bristle at the suggestion that human behavior is merely an attempt to attain happiness. They offer two objections. First (they say), people care about many things other than happiness — for example, truth, justice, and the American way — and thus there is more to life than happiness. Second (they add), there are different kinds of happiness — for example, the deep, moral happiness I feel when I save starving orphans isn't the cheap, bovine happiness I feel when I save money. Both objections are wrong." DanielGilbert
"We are often quite poor at predicting what will make us happy in the future for two reasons. First, we have been given a lot of disinformation about happiness by two sources: Genes and culture. Both genes and cultures are self-perpetuating entities that need us to do things for them so that they can survive. Because we are interested in our own happiness and not theirs, both entities fool us into believing that's what is good for them is also good for us. We]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:56:22 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage "People often bristle at the suggestion that human behavior is merely an attempt to attain happiness. They offer two objections. First (they say), people care about many things other than happiness — for example, truth, justice, and the American way — and thus there is more to life than happiness. Second (they add), there are different kinds of happiness — for example, the deep, moral happiness I feel when I save starving orphans isn't the cheap, bovine happiness I feel when I save money. Both objections are wrong." DanielGilbert
"We are often quite poor at predicting what will make us happy in the future for two reasons. First, we have been given a lot of disinformation about happiness by two sources: Genes and culture. Both genes and cultures are self-perpetuating entities that need us to do things for them so that they can survive. Because we are interested in our own happiness and not theirs, both entities fool us into believing that's what is good for them is also good for us. We]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:54:29 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage "Careful studies of how women feel as they go about their daily activities show that they are less happy when taking care of children than when eating, exercising, shopping, napping or watching television." (ibid)
"People often bristle at the suggestion that human behavior is merely an attempt to attain happiness. They offer two objections. First (they say), people care about many things other than happiness — for example, truth, justice, and the American way — and thus there is more to life than happiness. Second (they add), there are different kinds of happiness — for example, the deep, moral happiness I feel when I save starving orphans isn't the cheap, bovine happiness I feel when I save money. Both objections are wrong." DanielGilbert
"We are often quite poor at predicting what will make us happy in the future for two reasons. First, we have been given a lot of disinformation about happiness by two sources: Genes and culture. Both genes and cultures are self-pe]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:52:04 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage How do you define happiness?
What are the largest factors in your happiness?
Is human behavior simply an attempt to attain happiness?
If things like money and material belongings don't result in greater happiness, should we keep ### pursuing them as much as we currently are?
What sorts of things should government do with respect to your right to "the pursuit of happiness"?
]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:49:00 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage "The researchers also know from their surveys that the happiest of happy Americans are Republicans, social butterflies, and bigots." (ibid)
"Careful studies of how women feel as they go about their daily activities show that they are less happy when taking care of children than when eating, exercising, shopping, napping or watching television." (ibid)
"People often bristle at the suggestion that human behavior is merely an attempt to attain happiness. They offer two objections. First (they say), people care about many things other than happiness — for example, truth, justice, and the American way — and thus there is more to life than happiness. Second (they add), there are different kinds of happiness — for example, the deep, moral happiness I feel when I save starving orphans isn't the cheap, bovine happiness I feel when I save money. Both objections are wrong." DanielGilbert
Are the beliefs of conservative Christians (or Scientologists) any more fan]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:48:00 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage References: LogicalErrors
Suggested Topics for Next Meeting
Happiness (and other questions for 3/28)
Survey Questions
How happy are you? you? (0%-100%, with 0% being absolutely miserable, 50% neutral, and 100% absolutely happy
How much of our happiness can we personally control? (0-100%) (E.g. as opposed to genes, happenstance)
How moral a person are you (0% - 100%, use your own definition)
What is the probab]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:25:03 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Peter Andrijeski) Peter Andrijeski edited FrontPage How do you define happiness?
How much of our happiness can we control?
HowTo the extent that environment can affect happiness, how much of your happiness depends on your spouse, your family, your friends, your job, sex, learning, helping others, hobbies, health, money, etc.?
What sorts of things should government do with respect to your right to "the pursuit of happiness"?
What might "positive psychology" offer?
]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:50:33 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Peter Andrijeski) Peter Andrijeski edited FrontPage References: LogicalErrors
Suggested Topics for Next Meeting
Happiness
How happy are you?
How do you define happiness?
How much of our happiness can we control?
How much of your happiness depends on your spouse, your family, your friends, your job, sex, learning, helping others, hobbies, health, money, etc.?
What sorts of things should government do with respect to your right to "the pursuit of happiness"?
What might "positive psychology" offer?
Researcher J. Flanagan has shared this opportunity for scientific glory: AnswersInGenesis-CallForPapers
Are the beliefs of conservative Christians (or Scientologists) any more fantastical than core, common beliefs of 20th century psychoanalysis? Ray and I were once talking about something like people believing in demon possession or the Rapture, which Ray described as the equivalent of being worried about being eaten by a griffin. There are some pretty fantastical beliefs in conservative Christianity (if yo]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:46:40 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Peter Andrijeski) Peter Andrijeski edited FrontPage Argument Night Topics
If you would like to contribute to this page, the password is the name of Pete's brother in Seattle (all lowercase). Or you can just mail items to add to Pete.
night: TBD Fri 3/28 7:30pm location: TBD Monkey Skull Voodoo Lounge
In:
Bylaws: ByLaws
]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:45:19 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage References: LogicalErrors
Suggested Topics for Next Meeting
Researcher J. Flanagan has shared this opportunity for scientific glory: AnswersInGenesis-CallForPapers
Are the beliefs of conservative Christians (or Scientologists) any more fantastical than core, common beliefs of 20th century psychoanalysis? Ray and I were once talking about something like people believing in demon possession or the Rapture, which Ray described as the equivalent of being worried about being eaten by a griffin. There are some pretty fantastical beliefs in conservative Christianity (if you do not agree, substitute "Scientology" for "conservative Christianity"). But are the core, common beliefs of 20th century psychoanalysis any less fantastical than the notions of conservative Christians or Scientologists? (Notes: Don't confuse psychoanalysis and general psychotherapy; see PsychNotes for more)
Does the G-Spot exist?
]]> Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:20:54 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/PsychNotes email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited PsychNotes AreAfter thinking about this a bit, it might be better to phrase the beliefs of conservative Christians (or Scientologists) any question thusly:
Which is more outlandish and fantastical than core, common beliefs of 20th century in their beliefs: Scientology or mainstream psychoanalysis?
You are of course familiar with the ideas of the Oedipus Complex, the Castration Complex, the id, ego and super ego, penis envy, that vaginal orgasm, the death instinct, the primal scene and primal crime, transference, and the Freudian defense mechanisms. Here is the diagnosis, from the founder of]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:39:44 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/PsychNotes email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete added PsychNotes **Are the beliefs of conservative Christians (or Scientologists) any more fantastical than core, common beliefs of 20th century psychoanalysis?**

You are of course familiar with the ideas of the Oedipus Complex, the Castration Complex, the id, ego and super ego, penis envy, that vaginal orgasm, the death instinct, the primal scene and primal crime, transference, and the Freudian defense mechanisms. Here is the diagnosis, from the founder of psychoanalysis himself, of a patient\'s recurring dream about dogs sitting in a tree outside his window:
\"The wolves (actually dogs, as Freud was later compelled to admit), were the parents; their whiteness meant bedclothes; their stillness meant the opposite, coital motion; their big tails signified, by the same indulgent logic, castration; daylight meant night; and all this could be traced most assuredly to a memory from age one of \\[the patient\'s\\] mother and father copulating, doggy style, no less than three times in succession while he watched from the cri]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:12:22 +0000 add http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Pete) Pete edited FrontPage References: LogicalErrors
Suggested Topics for Next Meeting
Are the beliefs of conservative Christians (or Scientologists) any more fantastical than core, common beliefs of 20th century psychoanalysis? Ray and I were once talking about something like people believing in demon possession or the Rapture, which Ray described as the equivalent of being worried about being eaten by a griffin. There are some pretty fantastical beliefs in conservative Christianity (if you do not agree, substitute "Scientology" for "conservative Christianity"). But are the core, common beliefs of 20th century psychoanalysis any less fantastical than the notions of conservative Christians or Scientologists? (Notes: Don't confuse psychoanalysis and general psychotherapy; see PsychNotes for more)
Does the G-Spot exist?
"The G-spot is an allegedly highly erogenous area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. Since the concept first appeared in a popular book on human sexuality in 1982]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:50:31 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/MoreOnGspot email.hidden@example.com (Peter Andrijeski) Peter Andrijeski added MoreOnGspot !ON THE SPOT
[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/011130.html The Straight Dope]

A recent article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology by Pace University psychologist Terence Hines affirms what many (including your columnist) have long suspected about that legendary locus of female sexual pleasure, the Grafenberg spot, also known as the G-spot. The G-spot supposedly is a small, highly sensitive area on the anterior (front) wall of the vagina that swells and produces pleasurable sensations when manually stimulated. Few today doubt there is such a thing. In one survey of 1,300 professional women, 84 percent agreed that \"a highly sensitive area exists in the vagina.\"

Hines doesn\'t come right out and say they\'re all deluded--I mean, define \"highly sensitive area.\" But he does suggest there\'s little evidence for the G-spot as usually understood.

Apart from anecdotal claims, Hines says, only two published studies have purported to find the G-spot. The first told of a woman who cl]]> Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:12:19 +0000 add http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Peter Andrijeski) Peter Andrijeski edited FrontPage Argument Night Topics
If you would like to contribute to this page, the password is the name of Pete's brother in Seattle (all lowercase). Or you can just mail items to add to Pete.
night: Date Fri 8/3 8pm, TBD location: Octopus Lounge (Ray's) TBD
In:
Bylaws: ByLaws
]]> Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:10:51 +0000 mod http://argue.pbwiki.com/FrontPage email.hidden@example.com (Peter Andrijeski) Peter Andrijeski edited FrontPage Suggested Topics for Next Meeting
Does the G-Spot exist?
|"The"The G-spot is an allegedly highly erogenous area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. Since the concept first appeared in a popular book on human sexuality in 1982, the existence of the spot has become widely accepted, especially by the general public. This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims about the nature of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies." --- --- TheG-spot:amoderngynecologicmyth, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Aug 2001, Terence Hines, Department of Psychology, Pace University University
MoreOnGspot
Connotations: On a]]> Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:09:51 +0000 mod