Bamberpanda wrote -
Looking for s/thing else, I just came across this 2006 post from Laura Knight-Jadczyk. It is relevant to a previous discussion here in the Forum ‘SOCIETY’ section, but as it contains technical stuff . I thought it fitted ‘SCIENCE’ better.

Quote:

(http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1868&p=1). LKJ wrote - ‘It featured a remarkably prescient article from an anonymous ‘J’, originally on one of the IMC sites. Dr Lobaczewsky’s ponerology studies pre-dated ‘J’. But apparently independently, in 2003, ‘J’ had identified much about the malign role of pathocrats. What particularly gave me a jolt in the ‘J’ text was - “DRD4 R7. That's it folks. The genetic basis of psykopathology. They have presented this gene as the genetic basis of danger-ignoring, novelty-seeking behavior & of a type of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. I consider every extreme novelty-seeker I have ever met to have been a path, & I've seen ADHD (BP note - Attention Deficit Hyperactvity Disorder), in many instances, be a misdiagnosis for psykopathology.” ‘

Bamberpanda wrote -
Very interesting, as the ‘nomad hypothesis’ below may show. Science has linked ‘wanderlust’ to the brain chemical, dopamine 4-7. Its presence becomes stronger in populations the further from Africa.

Quote:

Padawan Learner wrote in a follow-up post - (http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1868&p=4), ‘nktulloch, “Interesting. Just recently found this thread & I kept thinking as I read that the gene sounds familiar. I spent the past year working with the DRD2 gene. The DRD4 7R is the dopamine receptor type 4 gene with 7 repeats of 48 base pairs. It is what one would call the long form of the D4 gene. The version of the DRD2 I worked on was also the long form of the D2 receptor gene which is implicated in schizophrenia.” “Anyway, the long form of the D4 receptor is also associated with various psychiatric disorders including OCD & ADHD. D4 receptors are found mostly in the limbic system (emotional) & in schizophrenia a lot of these D4s are in the striatum but again it's the frontal cortex D1 that is affected. The best schizophrenia drug actually target D4 receptors while traditional drugs targeted D2. Go figure. I think it's both receptors. Im not sure D4 alone would be a psychopathic gene which is what this J is pushing. The DRD4 2R which is another form of the D4 gene is implicated in mood disorders like depression, bipolar etc. There is heated debate about this particular mutation (DRD4 R7 ) & ADHD”. “Personally I think combined mutations in dopamine & serotonin receptor genes may have something to do with psychopathy. Depression is a sign that one can empathize with the others & studies indicate that slightly depressed people are better at gauging the reality of the situation. Depression is usually low dopamine & serotonin. There are also loads of excitatory neurotransmittors in food (aspartate, glutamate) which will also screw up the dopaminergic & serotonergic system. The brain works in a homeostatic manner. If you throw off one chemical the others get screwed up. I swear, if you're not born a psychopath, everything from social programming to the food you eat is such that your brain chemistry & behaviors get as close to psychopathy as possible. If not the depression gets so bad you can't do anything.”

Bamberpanda wrote –
Any further informed comments welcome. I have no serious background in psi, or any other speciality. But I have also been on the track of humanity’s bane, the pathology of 'civilizations'. I find a major cause in 'paths'. I label them ‘The Aristocratic Mafia’, from their social role in history, past & resent cultures. Their tracks run back to our sapiens sapiens paeleolithic ancestors, who trekked out of Africa in small groups around 70,000 years ago.

These groups (us sapiens) were remarkable. They walked, or sailed, until they reached every continent, & every kind of environment. It seems they were indeed driven by pathological “danger-ignoring, novelty-seeking behavior”. By pathological, I mean non-survival, so irrational behavior, not modern diagnosis criteria: relentless expansionism rather than stable, slow adaptation.

Eg., I was long puzzled by the ubiquitous popularity of gambling. By turnover, it is America’s largest business. Why so? Everyone knows the odds are stacked. The answer came when one linked gambling to rambling. It’s dem ol’ atavistic genes. Why else are travel & holidays so popular? – another vast (& non-utile) service industry. Bamberpanda

Go on.

Yes now this is interesting, anything that links in behaviour and brain-chemistry is interesting to me.

I shall look more into this... although I am lazy and would prefer to have links posted here for me to click on.

Thanks MonoExplosion & Phy,
but that's about as far as this layman can take the ideas. The hard evidence comes from brain research & genetics-applied-to-archeology - above my IQ & pay scale. I simply borrowed that evidence to try to explain why humanity does stupid & self-destructive things, year in, year out. I was hoping there was some specialist out there with new ideas.

With the discovery that many 'psychopaths' (however defined) are anti-social rather than insane, a bulb lit up. Aha! The social role of this small, antinomian minority could explain much. But it is a very difficult study.

Eg., the marvels of modern genetic research are pushing knowledge of our ancestors back beyond the stone age. Trouble is, there are no clear links from genetic trail to archeological evidence (behavior), & archie evidence is very rare. Eg., the recent discovery that the aurignacian culture that produced the cave paintings of southern Europe: that local, western culture had an input of a gene from some more ancient homonoid line. Bingo? Er, no; the sudden flowering of painting skills was local & temporary. Maybe the gene expressed itself later in other cultural directions? Maybe, but we need a lot more evidence.

The puzzling picture gets more confused, not simpler. The old idea of progression from primitive to ever-more sophisticated is inadequate. Some of the ancestors lived in simple societies, but had advanced mental capabilities.

We have increasing amounts of evidence about 'paths', since they are with us still, as also (tragically) plenty of self-destructive numan behavior. The late Arthur Koestler grasped the problem long ago. He proposed mass drugs treatment for humanity, as the route to macro survival; not feasible, practical or ethical, eh?

Nevertheless, drug treatment brought a minor revolution in the treatment of mental illness, & with that, growing knowledge about how brain chemistry affects human behavior. If science didn't have enuf troubles, drugs-for-behavior-modification & genetics are fraught with induced social, political, ethical & religious concerns. Yep, knowledge yields power, for good or ill. Bamberpanda

Lavender Orchid,

I put your reply here for convenience. I can't see much evidence of human stupidity in gambling. Many very bright people get hooked. The interesting thing: everyone 'knows' you can't beat the bookie or the house, yet so many must try! Why? Cambling must be a very deep instinct, so genetically carried.

Around the Renaissance, a slew of very bright mathematicians applied their talents to 'beating the odds' of card games. Out of odds calculations came advances in algebra, early probability studies, etc. And more -

Note the association: the rise of high-stakes card gaming & the appearance of the stock exchange. There is a faultline in the capitalist heart - to hang on to the gold bricks, & to risk them to make even more. The fundamental gambling-risk drive explains a mystery - why the man/woman with $10 billion wants more. 'Greed' is a poor explanation.

The child who wants six ice-creams is greedy. The flash young exec who wants a Ferrari to replace his Porsche is greedy. But if you have 20 or more houses scattered round the world, & enuf money for a fleet of diamond-encrusted Ferraris, what is the desire for more money? This is not greed in the ordinary sense of the word.

Such people are in the grip of something else. One plutocrat was asked why he drove himself so hard, when he had so much already. He answered that he loved 'the game' - matching his wits & money against rivals. Aha! There we have it. Capitalism is the biggest gambling table in town. The New York or London stock exchanges pull in the dupes just like Las Vegas. They are fleeced with monotonous regularity. Yet more come back. We are not fully rational creatures, so the pathology of our self-negating culture. Bamberpanda

MonoExplosion,

interesting; seems to me fiction is a perfectly valid & appropriate form to explore ideas & warnings that cannot be expressed elsewhere. Eg., HG Wells did this with his futuristic sci-fi series. There is a great need for Hollywood to latch on to the threat of pathocrat leaders. Nearest thing I saw was 'Day of the Condor' (Robert Redford).

Oh, there was also that action-man actor who warned about the powers of secret government in one movie - he claimed his career was sabotaged after. Anyone recall the name?

Is the UK being drugged into passivity? Not much actual evidence, & general dissemination would surely numb the brains of those few scientists & technocrats our masters must depend on? The UK does have low diet/nutrition/food standards. Most people eat crap. As far as I know, this is not planned, just the outcome of excessive industrialized food-processing.

What is a potential threat; bio-engineered diseases, maybe tailored genetically to attack only Afro-Asians. But there again, huge dangers for our masters as these organisms replicate, evolve, & perhaps jump race barriers.

Maybe significant hint: in response to bio-warfare threats, Iron Curtain countries distributed kits for producing silver colloid solution - a cheap & effective general defense. Not so in the West; wonder why? Bamberpanda

Robbers,

I’m struggling b/ween being patronizing & insulting, but that’s what your muddled post inspires. You really are one crazy, mixed-up kid. I think you would enjoy Nietsche. I didn’t, becos the guy was clever, but unfortunately bananas.

First, if you insist that good is bad & vice-versa, you have not even the option of making free, moral choices. You are a mental slave to any irrational impulse.

Re irrational gambling, you wrote -

Quote:

“This is why... You are going to lose everything -- certainly -- so why not bet it all? Why not risk it all? Why not go for the big win?”

Becos if you resist the impulse, you keep money in hand. You are only going to lose e/thing if you persist in gambling. That’s a near arithmetical certainty. Precisely becos the inveterate gambler cannot make this kind of rational calculation, s/he is not free, like the person who is hopelessly confused about the simple categories of good & evil.

Re the Jonah Goldberg vid; I’m very familiar with right-wing ideologues & their arguments. Goldberg is not a very skilfull example. As I’ve pontificated before, you can easily convince redneck audiences that liberals are fascists, or closet communists, if the ignorant do not know the meaning of these labels. The less you know about A & B, the more alike they can be painted.

So, it is gibberish to claim

Quote:

“Being a psychopath is a choice; more than that, it is a guiding moral code.”

It cannot be, since you have ditched the very idea of morality, & being a psychopath is exactly to be in the grip of forces you cannot freely control. Remember – “All Cretans are liars, said the Cretan.”?

I DO NOT claim psychopathy is a mental ilness, as clearly explained. Indeed, I’ve blown a gale explaining how the condition connects to majority human nature – it’s natural, already, fer krissake, IMHO. But as far as I’ve discovered, paths do not fight for freedom, the polar opposite. Think Adolf Hitler & Stalin. Left to run around, they tend to infect whole societies with evil. The pathocratic state is the final condition. It kills itself, like a shark in a feeding frenzy eating its own entrails. Bamberpanda

Man, I love to gamble
It's a win-win situation
Keeps the $$$$ in the US and provides a decent living for casino workers
There are whole communities which depend of that cash.
I love prostitutes and bourbon, for the same reason.

Can't really think of a better way to spend my money.

Hey, right back 'atcha!

You got any money on CFB this weekend?

Palmer,
we're not criticising gamblers. We are trying to explain why so many people do it. And no use saying 'becos gambling is fun' - the proof of that is so many people doing it, & we've gone round that course already, eh?.

Palmer wrote of gambling - "It's a win-win situation"

As a close relative of a bookmaker, I can assure you the mugs always lose. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be any bookies, would there? Sure, some win by race-fixing, but the biggest fixers are trainers & racing authorities. Dashed unsporting, that.

Robbers,

Quote:

"Gödel, Escher, Bach, Douglas R. Hofstadter".

Yes, a good read.

Quote:

Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement: "All Cretans are liars."

Well Googled! Now Google Socrates versus Callicles (Gorgias), & relate it to the clapped-out old jalopy you are trying to sell.

The rest of your post is largely incomprehensible to me. And it's bound to be, since you seem to believe rationality is s/thing society attempts unfairly to impose upon you (like morality). No: rationality is the substratum of language. W/out that foundation, we cannot converse coherently, which means ultimately we have no way to relate to others as human beings.

And that would presumably be of no consequence to you, since you want to indulge your own impulses, & presumably completely ignoring any pain or damge you may inflict an others. Puppy-torturing; hey, it's fun! So the nasty authorities are just picking on you when they arrest you.

If you want to knit yourself a philosophy from your ball of furry confusions, try 'subjective deontology' - versions to fit saints, down to the Jack the Rippers & padded cellmates.

Your life, but I foresee tears before bedtime. Bamberpanda

a frightening irrationality seems to come from "dissident" confusing this forum with internet2.

imho.

ooooops.... 5 days later, and NO continuation, not even in DIScontinuation...., Bamberpanda!

social gatherings, btw.? less than ever, imho.

Robbers, you wrote -

"Are animals rational? Can we communicate with animals?"

"Did you have an experience like this when you were a kid...? You and some friends went back in the woods. You caught a few fish, some frogs, and some other small animals. But you didn't catch them to eat... but for sport... instead of a BBQ, you dug out their eyes with sticks, burned them, broke off their jaws... like that. "

We can communicate with animals, altho not in the linguistic way we interract with fellow humans. A dog will be a faithful friend, & also a hopeless bully with strangers. WE understand & forgive that: a dog cannot be human. It's a dog.

I've done many things in my time of which I've been ashamed & sorry after. That's pretty standard practice for sapiens. That's how we mature into moral beings. To stay a dumb child all your life, not knowing the effects of what you do on others, that's an affliction, not a viable option. Bamberpanda

Palmer,
you wrote -

Quote:

"I believe in buying local"

. Commendable but irrelevant.

You wrote -

Quote:

"It's an ethical decision, based on keeping $$$ and jobs in circulation".

No it aint. People bet becos it's 'fun'. The question hangs, why is it fun?

You wrote -

Quote:

"Who cares if a bookie makes a profit? Why would he do it, otherwise?"

I already said that. You are still skirting the issue.

Amongst other irrelevant statements -

Quote:

"I don't mind giving someone who provides a valuable community serivce a cut of the pie. Besides, you don't need a bookie to gamble. Just go on a cruise, or to Atlantic City."

However or wherever you put your money down, bookies are just the agents who accept bets. How valuable their social role is, is a value judgement. The major bookie in the USA is the Standard Guaranty Corp. Last time I looked, that was a Morgan comany. In other words, it is a Wall Street conglomerate. If you don't mind gifting Wall Street your money, your choice. I'm more interested in the original topic - why gamble if you are doomed by the odds? Bamberpanda

Okay, I gave it my best shot Bamberpanda.
Gambling is a cheap thrill
It is one of the only industries I can think of, besides prostitution and liquor production, which is an American enterprise. I spent all of my "stimulus money" on these things, and don't consider it money wasted. Better than squandering it on cheaply made items at the local mega-mart, I hope you will agree.

I would say that the odds are pretty much stacked against you no matter what you do.
Why not have a little fun along the way?
It's only $$$$, right?

Palmer,
I'm not arguing against gambling. I waste my money on beer. What interests me is why people get a thrill out of pitting themselves against the ultimately unwinnable. It's what has puzzled us since Darwin's theory appeared. That says broadly that we & the animals tend to do things that help us survive in some way. Yet there remains a small group of behaviors that go against this principle - like gaming.

OK, another one is high-risk sports. Why do we get a 'high' from risking our necks? Or, as said earlier, why do we revere heroes who die throwing themselves against superior forces? Surely we should praise the sensible ones who move out & live to fight another day?

It's no use saying that's the way we are. Why are we this way? I might call it stupidity in an off moment, but that's not really the case, is it? I've known very brainy academics who love to hang on rock faces by their fingertips. Personally, I can't even bear watching, nor the flying trapeze artists. Millions do seem to get a vicarious thrill.

The real biggee is mass warfare. We learn thru history that wars only really benefit the bankers. But, start banging the drums & blowing the bugles & millions sign up to get maimed or killed - & of course, every one gambles on surviving, believing only the others will be casualties! Bamberpanda

Synchronicity! The picture at the top - "This machine kills fascists". That was on the dead Woody Guthrie's guitar. He was a folk singer with many qualities, but he was also a pyromaniac. Curiously, robbers mentioned pyromania in an earlier post. Thought it might interest. Bamberpanda

He got that from his mom.

If Woody was a pyromaniac, I think he mostly expressed those impulses through his music.

poordunce & robbers,
apparently Guthrie burned down his own house once, possibly losing one child - can't remember exactly. Bamberpanda

Gambling is a Lose-Lose situation, in Australia the machines may be still running,
but the message is being spread, near every machines there is a sign saying stuff
like
"The House always Wins"
and you'd be a fool to try a prove them wrong,

"Slut" machines have no skill in them, the chances of winning is your own pot luck, 2 things, what
machine you choose and 2 how many spins you take, THATS IT!
it is day-n-night robbery,
but it is accepted because most people have fell in love with the "Slut" Machine,
it's lights drive you crazy and you wanna see the siren or WIN light to flash,
but the odds are
against you, the average Gambler is losing money as most push their "Winning Spree"
too far, they don't put limits on how much they are willing to spend,
and isn't it VERY
convenient that a bar is located nice and close to make you more vulnerable to stupid choices and losing, even if you manage to walk away with 2 grand
you still lost because
how many times have you been to the "pokies" before that win,
im sure most have lost at least double that one of win so you are basically investing in a machine that randomly decides whether or not you get some money
out of it, it's INSANITY to be hooked on those machines,
it makes me sick about how many people are literally killing themselves because
of gambling!

BTW to the person who enjoy's whores,
well good on ya! your the type of person who
wants to live for today but will probably end up killing yourself the next,
why because
you live in the moment, you think you become the centre of the universe and
you will always win, enjoy your whores but too much indulgence leads to
diseases and alcohol leads to f*cked up "Golden Years" and seriously what woman
is going to want to look after an ex alcoholic, ex mr f*kalot, stuttering, shaking old man
those are the facts of the path you have chosen, but it really depend on how often you
binge on your "sins" (Im not religious, I just could'nt find another word to say)

^^^like i said, it depends on how often

blowing money every once in a while is good but looking for the paradise of having your favorite sins fulfilled day in day out is really un realistic

lockie,
I reckon we all agree about the stupidities of gambling. I was trying to discover why so many people fall for it, not argue them out of it.

My suggestion is that gambling is a deep instinct in us. It got there when modern human beings were spreading all over the globe. The fastest spreaders were those willing to gamble on a better place beyond the hill. I expect many lost out, starved, or got finished by hostile environments. The gamblers-riskers won the spreading race, tho - that's us.

As you have seen, it's not just a man thing. Women also get the gambling bug. And ever notice how often a decent woman will fall for some worthless, lying waster? She gambles with her genes that the combination will make a winner child. Or hard-headed old businessmen fall for brassy gold-diggers? Most lose. Bamberpanda

Are you sure that translating this risk taking endeavour to sex is fully right?
Wouldn't that be underestimating jiggly tits, wide hips and big dicks? Too big, too small, size does matter after all:

http://www.visit-x.net/rammstein

a sense of pride perhaps?
where would that come from?
the previous post begs for a "counterstrike"!!!

about trolling..

Phy & lavender orchid,
my suggestion is, we often choose our mates precisely becos of 'incompatibility'. We gamble on happiness, against all odds. Maybe? This makes for randomized mixing of otherwise divergent genes? I'm no expert, but presumably a successful mixture produces the occasional happy result of an above-average child with advanced gifts - but mostly not.

Thing is, our tendency towards anarchic pairing is not rational, nor on average, productive of human happiness. Eg., egg-head intellectual Arthur Miller married poor Marilyn Monroe. As his mom could have told him, no good would come of it; nor did it.

My suggestion Mark II; that's why serial females find psychopaths attractive, also why males are irresistibly drawn to femmes fatales.

Bamberpanda

more power to the combined wisdom here! but spare me... please!

http://www.sextimeandpower.com/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/162240/madagaskar_i_like_to_move_it/

... to (perhaps)..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodynamics

lavender orchid,

strange sites you wander. Er, except those that feature the famous panda, of course. Bamberpanda

i might be confused, but not on the psycho-path yet..

Wow lavender! I like those psychodynamic theory. (lol) (it is funny because.. I don't know).

I think everyone wanted to reach reconcilatory term with their id, ego and superego and I added; with environment. I don't know how the psychodynamic theory suggest on doing that (I HAVE NEVER SEEN A PSYCHIATRIST BEFORE!) but I think it involve understanding why someone felt the way they are feelings, wording it out in term of words that our conscious can understand. What do you think?
_

lavender orchid wrote:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/162240/madagaskar_i_like_to_move_it/

I like to mov'it.. move it
I like to mov'it.. MOVE IT!

What the...
When I heard it with somebody else years before, it sounded sexual.

lavender orchid wrote:

http://www.sextimeandpower.com/

So it is true! the music is sexual in nature!
Mov'it.. mov'it, move it..

Hmm... actually that book sounded like refering torward a specific religion which I dare not say, had also used the moon as a periodic timekeeper, and consider having sex during mentrual as a sin. But that's just my pre-conception, would you care to tell FUN FACTS such that someone don't need to buy those book to learn something? please?
_

Bamberpanda!

I think James T. Kirk is the perfect answer to the "love gambling why?" dilemma. As you said; "to boldy go to where no man had gone before!". To explore space, alien planet and new technology. To experience adventure and excitement. STAR TREK!

James T. Kirk is (imo) perfectly paired with Mr. Spoock (a culturally trained "to be psychopath" Vulcan) in Star Trek The Original Series. No mission will succeed without James T. Kirk boldy make a decision, and no mission will be successful without Mr. Spock's opinion. Sometimes Mr. Spock just gave opinion, but that's still OK.

Xponen,
I used to watch Star Trek. It was far superior sci-fi to that crappy BBC 'Dr Who'. Indeed, cpt. Kirk was the wild card. Never ever explained was - why go where no-one had split infinitives before? As you suggest, Mr Spock was the counterpoint, the frail voice of reason that never stopped Kirk doin' what a man gotta do. Well, as long as he washed his hands after, why not?

If you're into sci-fi, lordy, read the classic 'The Power', by Robinson, Frank M (SCORTIA, Frank M). It will blow yer sox off! It predicts the rise of the hyper-path. Advice, if you are of an imaginative disposition, do not read alone. Bamberpanda

one dare not even suggest that living without the influence of televised sci-fi serials may turn out better human thought and experience altogether.
shove the unwholesome business, imho.

lavender orchid,

thanks; as has been said already hereabouts, sci-fi is not usually a female thing. I go with you some way. Most sci-fi is rubbish. Nevrtheless, there remains a superb minority of works that are rewarding. Of course, cpt. Kirk & Spock were dick-heads! We know that, but some of Gene Rodenberry's plots were ingenious & thought-provoking, despite the parochial underpinnings. Eg., very pleased that female space-naut uniforms will include miniskirts & kinky-boots. Fire up the boilers, Scottie. Give it warp 9. Yee-haw! Bamberpanda

well, gene r.'s ideas needed linda goodman - quite a deviation, isn't it? - for me to come to some KIND (of) understanding.

but who in return would sit with me talking stanislaw lem, for instance?

lavender orchid,

you ask, " - - - who in return would sit with me talking stanislaw lem, for instance?"

Never heard of Lem, until I Googled him. Saw the Rooski 'Solaris', but found it unimpressive. So, make with the panegyrics, LO. BP

Bamberpanda: no malice intended, but "the next generation" is already under the cultural hegemonist spell of that which made it to hollywood.
hitting the cry button?