Jordan Johnson's Archive

I recently watched a documentory on the solitary confinement of prisoners in america. The show went through the stay of inmates who were sometimes locked up for years with out being allowed human contact (besides the guards who brought them meals). It was interesting that often these inmates would try to kill themselves, hurt themselves or disobey the guard just to get some attention and human contact. It makes me think that this chart is not completely accurate about the human needs as i once thought it was. It appears that in many cases the psychological needs outwayed the safety needs even survival needs by a fair amount. Although one could argue that the psychological needs were so dismissed that they became a basic need , forgoing safty needs.  The same effect happens to people in general who do not become self-actualized. Those that can not change themselves into what they may consider a better human being often go into depression and basic needs as well as safety needs are bipassed. Again one could argue that the chart is merly an example of the order in which a functioning human works, but as i had mentioned in solitary the pscyhological need became a necesity, so would that be a functional mind. Im interested to hear responses.

Have you ever wondered who the people are on the other side of these advertisements, what they are thinking when they come up with the slogan for a new company or decide to sell an item that no one in their right mind would ever buy. But are we in our right mind? Well i thought about it plenty. It seems to me and obviously with J.B Watson as an example that a lot of psychology goes into advertising. The foundation of my question is should this be legal and if so when is the line drawn. At one point they made subliminal messaging in advertising illegal but what about behaviorism. What if ever commercial for coke started and ended with a bing sound so that every time you heard the sound bing you thought of coke. From that moment on several times throughout the day you would hear a bing through the radio and that is it. Should that be legal if so what about doing it with cigarettes. I guess im just eager to hear some one elses thoughts on the subject? Bing. Oh, sorry i have to go its time for a coke and a smoke!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reification.jpg

I have always found it amazing how the mind works especially when it comes to the laws of perception. Like the law of continuity which states that a pattern might be seen among items that are near each other. such as a picture of what appears to be two squares one partially behind the other but really its one square with an “L” shaped figure next to it. Why does the mind try to simplify what it see’s. This baffles me as I am a very analytical person and often over complicate thing as I look at them, not necessarily what  objects, but more peoples choices and and scenarios. In any case I find it interesting that my mind would simplify one thing while complicating another. One could argue for evolutionary psychology I suppose, and say that simplifying objects that we see could come from a suspicion of dark objects that could be either prey or predator lying in wait in the habitat, while the complication of peoples choices could come from a suspicion of people in order to predetermine if they are a threat. Not necessarily my view, but just a thought. Also, why do some people have an inability to analyze what they see, like the picture of the vase made out of two faces looking at one another on page 468 of our text? Some people can see both points of view right off the back while others will struggle even after its been pointed out. The same goes for analyzing a conversation why do some perform such things and others could careless?

It has been a long standing question as to whether the book of genesis and the story of creation was a real story or a metaphorical one, with people standing strongly on both sides of the issue. The church has historically fought for it to be a true literal story, but has recently changed that with new evidence over the past century for the theory of evolution. Doubts of the story grow as more and more evidence is gathered. Even the psychological evidence is over whelming. Or is it? What does does questioning such things say about our faith and if we practice and teach evolutionary psychology does that make us bad Christians?

The so called evidence for evolution through the use of psychology is an explanation for ones actions through the use of a evolutionary story, sounds stretched. Example, why do men care more about sexual infidelity while women care more about emotional infidelity. Evolutionary psychology states that men want to pass on their genes as they always have and they can never really be sure the child is theirs, while the woman has need a man in the past to survive and with out his emotions invested in her then he may move on. The idea of evolutionary psychology is based on the fact that this explanation makes since, but their is no proof. I don’t believe this should deter us from teaching it though in fact i believe we should, but not as fact and using it in practice (how ever we may) should be limited to seldom at best. I’m not just talking about Christians either as i believe in evolution myself and find no fault in believing in genesis as a metaphorical story and believing in evolution. From an evolutionary stand point we are called to question everything we see thats how we survive and grow, so i say it makes one a better christian to question the bible and its parts.

It seems today especially from Christians both from catholics and protestant back grounds, that skeptics are given a bad name. In fact it was said this week in chapel that it is much harder to find the truth in something than it is to find the fault and the point was to tear down skepticism, I take offense being a skeptic myself. The renaissance shows the true greatness of being a skeptic as well as how hard it is to be a skeptic and get criticized for it. Yes, that’s right i said its harder to be a skeptic, often you become attack and in many cases are unlike especially by those you disprove, yikes. One of my heroes in particular is Galileo as his ideas of what can be considered science have driven my logical arguments for years. His ideas on Primary qualities and Secondary qualities has shaped how i look at a rational argument and what i consider to be reason or logic. Basically the idea is that only things that can be perceived or measured mathematically or can not be perceived differently by different people can be considered a primary quality or scientific. But, there was one thing that we disagreed on. I believe that psychology can be considered a science. It is not an exact science but the psychological test that show the same result time and time again such as the Milgram experiment in which the participants were ask by what was general understood to be an authority figure to shock the another participant. It is questionable what each person precieves as an authority figure and whether they felt the other participant was in any real danger. Although it showed that people are easily manipulated time and time again by an authority figure. Is it science or not? You have to be a skeptic of either psychology or galileo’s ideas about psychology, have fun!

It is in my opinion that Plato would have been a great movie director or script writer and God knows with the ideas he had, he probably almost went insane just like all the director we have now days. The allegory of the cave as Plato may have seen it, could have looked something like the movie Inception.

Inception Preview.

(The Allegory of the cave states that everything is always viewed dimly and that there is always a greater truth meaning that you are in a cave that is inside of another cave that is also inside another cave and so on for eternity.)See last paragraph. Like i said Plato was probably insane at some point in his life. Every person it seems is doomed to be stuck in an endless cycle of not knowing very much like being in a world we don’t know whether is real or not. So we turn to Socrates who offered up the only solution for the problem. “The greatest knowledge you could have is that you don’t know.” It makes you wonder though how a man who believes that there is always a greater truth and we will never really know, could spend his whole life searching for answers or at least asking questions. Even at the time that Plato wrote this theory he could have been second guessing his ideas about it, knowing that there was a greater truth than it. Truly, “the most resilient parasite is an idea!”

On another note about the allagory of the cave the priciple is based solely on falsification as it is so vague that it can not be disproven. The theory stands on a leg that has but to say that the one who questions the theory has not yet come to the greater truth and the principle is restored. I guess its like most theology, maddening.

After reading other peoples comments I realize i specifically said something that is not in the theory of the Allegory of the Cave. The idea i was explaining was more my own on how i view Plato and how he could have view his own theory if he believed everything he stood for. Ill explain, Plato believed that there is always a greater truth and we never really have full knowledge, he also has his theory of the Allegory of the Cave which states that you leave the Cave and see more clear and have gained knowledge and enlightenment, but if there is always a greater truth then you would find yourself right back in another cave on the dim side of knowledge. I hope that clears things up, thanks everyone for the Comments!