You are here: Facts4u.com > List_of_Important_Facts4U
1. One of the strongest drives experienced by the human is the drive to be accepted. When you hear of "peer pressure" causing an individual to behave in ways quite out of character, then you need to be aware that a main component of the individual's character is based on the need for group acceptance. We in a sense do have split personalities--one as an individual, the other as a social organism.
Note that this "split personality" is most obvious in adolescents. Preadolescents confront the world as individuals functioning under the watchful eye of a guardian. Then when hormones start flooding their body (adolescence) and the required instinctive mechanisms are triggered, they move from meeting the world head on as individuals to striving to stand facing the world shoulder to shoulder with peers. Of course, peer acceptance requires group conformity. The adolescent as an individual struggles for survival, but as a social organism, he (or she) had rather die than be ridiculed, scorned, or ostracized from the group. (Nature has encoded in their genes the fact that the organism's struggle for survival as an individual isn't going to be as successful as the individual's struggle for survival as a member of a pack/herd/flock/troop/group/gang.)
2. "Peer pressure" isn't a force external to the individual. Peer pressure is the result of instinctive mechanisms within the individual. The instinct is one of the factors that drive the individual to strive for group acceptance. But this doesn't mean no peer would ever twist your arm in an attempt to stimulate you into conformity. It only means such arm-twisting would likely be unnecessary considering the effectiveness of the internal stimulation being experienced.
3. Organisms are not gear driven. They instead are dynamic systems. For instance, the fruit fly isn't genetically preprogrammed to seek ripe fruit in a specific and invariable manner. Instead, the fruit fly is motivated by a particular form of internal stimulation--such as thirst or hunger, or the "attraction" of a particular scent. And the fruit fly strives to satisfy the "want" through trial and error and/or as a result of previous learning experience.
This is true for all organisms. And the only difference between the fruit fly and the whale, or the human for that matter, is the complexity of the organism. We seek ripe fruit for the same reason the fruit fly does. But our behavior is much more complex, because the memories and learned-behavior stored in our "large" brains are more complex. And the reason one person may seek particular fruit while another avoids it is determined by instinctive "wants" and previous learning experiences. (Note: Certain smells may be pleasing to one person but repugnant to another because the second person had previously been "over stimulated" or gotten sick while sensing the smell. Also note we humans have language the fruit fly doesn't have. We thus develop rhetorical (and most often illusory) excuses for feelings we experience and for our acquired predisposition.)
4. The term "free will" is equivalent to "free wind." Both terms are oxymoronic in the sense that free from cause and effect contradicts a word referring to phenomena that is the result of cause and effect. In fact, the wind is only the effect of natural forces acting on air. Wind does not exist independently as a physical thing. Wind is a descriptive term referring to moving air. Air does exist. And when it is moving we call it wind. Likewise, the brain does exist in reality. But the so called "will" does not and cannot exist independent of the brain. And to add "free" to the descriptive term (will) confounds the meaning even further.
To say the fruit fly seeks the ripe fruit because of free will is not only nonsense, it would effectively prevent the believer of such nonsense from trying to ascertain the causal factors involved in the fruit fly's behavior. To say the human who happens to be seeking ripe fruit is doing so because of free will is just as nonsensical.
The reason females, who become sexually active outside the restrictions of marriage, are stoned to death in the Mid-East and scornfully rejected and ostracized by certain groups in this country is because, by nature, the human is very much akin to the bonobo (the chimpanzee species, Pan paniscus). Female bonobos tend to collectively dominate males by forming alliances and using sexuality for control. This means that in order for the male of the human species to stay in control, female sexuality would need be suppressed (and repressed emotionally). Most of the emotionally-loaded rhetoric used to justify suppressing female sexuality is either illusory or delusional (based on a erroneous understanding of reality or designed to delude).
The person who is born with normal eyes would go blind if the eyes are not stimulated with light so that the necessary wiring for sight can develop. This critical stage of development is said to be completed by the time the child is five years old. I suspect sound would be necessary for hearing to develop properly. And the critical stage for language acquisition is theorized to be the first ten years of life. The person who had never been exposed to language during the critical stage would be justifiably considered "retarded." Is there a critical stage for sexual development? I suspect so. I also suspect that many people have been sexually retarded or made sexually blind. Then again, should human sexuality happen to develop without retardation, then chances are, we would all be like bonobos when it came to sexual expression and habits.
6. Of course, in a country controlled by corporations that survive by making profits off of the citizenry, sexuality may be retarded and suppressed as part of a stratagem to redirect the energies of the populace, i.e., the individual who is in a state of sexual equilibrium isn't going to experience anywhere near the amount and intensity of striving as the individual who has unfulfilled sexual needs. Sexually satisfied individuals are much less likely to jump through all the hoops offered them as being fulfilling (and thus shop till they drop) than individuals who are experiencing ongoing sexual "want," especially when the deprived individuals are ignorant (and kept that way) of the root cause of their striving (want).
George Carlin had this to say on the subject:
I don't get it. Sex is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal? Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away?
George didn't get the big picture. George was unable to grasp why sex is retarded, suppressed and repressed in this country. (Note, I use repressed to mean self-suppressed, which is usually an emotionally conditioned response.) George thought some prudes had enacted contradictory morals as laws. Whereas, the contradiction arises as a result of sex not being made illegal "for fun" but being made illegal for profit, because "boo games" (scare tactics), retardation, and repression sufficiently curb the "for fun" activity, but wouldn't be anywhere near as effective should monetary rewards be involved.
7. Virginity is glorified as another means of sexual retardation and repression. We are taught that the female who becomes sexually active is a low-life, sleazy, slimy, slut. Whereas, we are taught the female who totally refrains from sex is "pure," "wholesome," and "upright." Thus the female is damned if she does, but the male is taught to join in with the damnation after she has yielded to his peer pressure and her own needs. (Note: Islam has found a way to have their cake and eat it too. The "maiden-head" of each Heavenly Virgin is rejuvenated after she gives each Muslim Man one of his Heavenly Rewards.) In reality, the true "worth" of a female is not based on the female's sexual habits. And a female who engages in copious copulation is no less "wholesome" than the bonobo female who does the same, nor is she any less wholesome than the human female who completely refrains.
8. The Norse God, Thor is not the cause of thunder and rain. Of course, practically everyone in this age realize that fact. However, the the brain and thought-patterns that resulted in a belief in Thor are still with us today. I call the inclination, "the monkey looking behind the mirror" tendency. The monkey doesn't comprehend that the observed phenomenon is light reflecting off of himself. His misapprehension results in him believing he is seeing another monkey or another being is somehow responsible for the phenomenon being perceived. Likewise, in many instances the human assumes unseen hands are involved in the phenomena. Yet, in every case--where phenomena that was incomprehensible to our ancestors has become known--we have learned natural causes and effects were responsible. But I reckon the fact that man doesn't seem to learn much from his history is the most important lesson of history. We're not as smart as we assume we are.
9. The age, sex, race, education, sexual orientation, religion, behavior, or psychological diagnoses of an individual is irrelevant to whether the individual presents a logical argument or not. An 11-year-old uneducated Christian hillbilly with "ADHD" can have insights and experiences that the mature, sophisticated, "normal," atheist city-slicker is wholly ignorant of. Yet, mud-slinging campaigns against a person's character (ad hominem attacks) and nonsensical exaggerations against statements made by the individual are generally very effective. But this takes us back the prestated fact that we humans are not as smart as is commonly presumed.
10. Food Stamps are as much welfare for corporations as they are welfare for individuals. Think about it. Who is going to receive the Food Stamps once they have been distributed to individuals? Corporations that supply food, of course. And what happens when a person uses Food Stamps to compete with cash paying customers for purchases? The higher demand translates into higher prices for the customer and higher profits for the Corporation. And what happens when individuals have Food Stamps that must be spent before a certain date or they will expire, or maybe the individual feels the threat of receiving less Stamps next time? It means individuals are going to needlessly squander the Food Stamps for items that normally wouldn't be purchased. And this means the individual could develop bad shopping habits, which are also to the benefit of the Corporation. The issue is compounded when you bear-in-mind the old adage, "Easy come, easy go."
11. Belief isn't a choice other than after the fact. You cannot freely choose what you find believable and what you find unbelievable. Belief is a developmental process dependant on sensory input, previous learning experiences, and cognition limitations and capabilities. A staunch Christian cannot freely switch the staunchness of his belief into a belief that Tinkerbell is the Holy Spirit, God is the Great Ghost of Never-Never Land, and Peter Pan is His one and only Begotten Son. The Christian can claim to have such capacity. He can pretend to believe. But he cannot believe such nonsense any more than the staunch atheist or the staunch Muslim can believe what the Christian proclaims as "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Of course, since belief is developed instead of chosen, the child can be raised to believe Tinkerbell, Peter Pan, and Never-Never Land are real. But when the child grows-up and is around people who are disbeliveers in such a "reality," disputes would ensue from the difference in previous perceptual development. And it would be fallacious to say that the individuals who disbelieved in the "reality" of Tinkerbell and Peter Pan are only being rebellious, or are disbelieving because they feel anger in regard to the Great Ghost of Never-Never Land. But we humans are capable of holding some pretty silly ideas, because we (who we are as biological cognition-machines and believers) are not free from the personal ontogenetic history of each our own development, as is commonly presumed.
12. Einstein once stated the fact that morals are of strictly human concern with no superhuman authority behind them. And I'll add that the foundation of "morals" are instinctive mechanisms necessary for animals that cluster into groups. The foundation of taboos/tabus once prevalent in the South Pacific islands are the same as the foundation for morals. And I'll also add that morals are dependant on time and circumstance. The morals of the typical resident of the Mideast are not exactly the same as the morals of the typical person from the Mid-US. And the morals of the Mid-US Resident in this age are not precisely the same as the morals held by Mid-US Resident of the 18th century. In fact, no individual has precisely the same morals from the cradle to the grave. The 80-year-old isn't going to have the same morals as he (or she) did at 8.
13. Every person is "moral" because every person has the instinctive mechanism necessary for group existence. (Note: by instinctive mechanism I mean the "mirror neurons" and other biological factors that result in individuals clustering into a group and each functioning as a social organism instead of a loner.) However, moral beliefs differ from individual to individual because the specific ontogenesis that resulted in the personal development of each individual has differed. Every person acts within the confines of the "morals" he has developed. A common trait for serial killers is that they presumed they were doing society a favor by killing what they felt were "low-life, sleazy, slimy sluts." But many of the killers didn't take jewelry off the bodies because they felt stealing was "wrong." The drug dealer looks upon himself as a businessman who is providing a necessary product to addicts in the community. The drug-user feels justified in his behavior or he wouldn't be behaving as he does. The pedophile had a psychological ontogeny that resulted in him believing nothing was wrong with playing sex-games or having sex with "underage" females. The bank robber feels he has a "right" to the money in the bank. No one is free from the ontogenetic history of his (or her) own personal development. As sung by Phil Ochs in his song "There but for Fortune" (1966):
Show me a prison, show me a jail
Show me a prisoner whose face has grown pale
And I'll show you a young man
With so many reasons why
There but for fortune go you or I
While watching the movie, ZEITGEIST Moving Forward (2011), I noted the verbal response of someone (also watching the movie) indicated she did not understand the range of behavior (misdeeds/neglect) that the term "abuse" could encompass (when used by the psychologists in the video). I knew the lady well enough to realize that the way she treated her children might have been considered "abuse" by the psychologists in the video. You see, most of the psychologists were being rather vague as to precisely what would be construed as "abuse," which would inevitably lead to misconceptions like those of the lady.
When a chimpanzee is subjected to "childhood abuse" that results in maladjustment of the individual chimp in adulthood, then chances are, when the human is subjected to such "abuse," maladjustment will occur. One can logically state that an experience (which the human child is subjected to) that leads to maladjustment (AKA, "psychological trauma"), but the same experience does not result in maladjustment of the chimpanzee individual, then the maladjustment is caused primarily by the reaction of others (the pack/herd/flock/troop/group/gang) to the experience rather than the actual experience itself.
Sir James George Frazer in his book, "The Golden Bough," Chapter XX. "Tabooed Persons," Paragraph 4, he tells of a belief held by the Maori, a Polynesian people of New Zealand. The belief was in the sanctity of the chief--a sanctity so "powerful" that it would kill anyone who came into contact with the chief or anything he had touched. Naturally, the transgressor would need to be made aware of the transgression or the power of the chief's "sacred" touch had no "effect."
Now, the superstitious person would say that the power of the chief's touch was not delusional nor the result of an illusion--it was "real" supernatural power. But the facts4u I want to share is that the experience of touching the chief (or something he had touched) was not the cause of the trauma. The trauma followed as a consequence of previously acquired emotion in regard to touching the chief and the reinforcing reaction of others in regard to the touch.
Therefore, should a bonobo touch the chief and not die, but a Maori touch the chief and be "seized by the most extraordinary convulsions and cramp in the stomach, which never ceased till he died," then the death was not cause by the actual experience but by the emotions and expectations the individual had been caused to acquire in regard to the experience. Whose fault would it really be when a person is emotionally scarred or dies from the trauma suffered following such an experience?
15. Every man (or woman) is a physical entity. The entity didn't pop into existence out of nowhere. The entity owes its existence, knowledge, and skills to other entities. The development of the entity into "who-he-is" (or who-she-is) was just as causally determined as the development of a snowflake. Therefore, all millionaires and billionaires owe their wealth 1) to the system that allowed them to gain advantage over others and accumulate the wealth, 2) to those individuals whose knowledge and skill was the foundation of the wealth accumulated, and 3) to the society that provided the opportunity for the accumulation.
The old adage goes, "money is the root of all evil." Yet, that isn't true. However, money
is the primary cause of evil. You see, the person whose development results in him growing to possess an anti-thievery disposition may become desperate enough
to occasionally steal in order to feed his family. But once the need is satisfied, the thieving
stops. Yet when food (or anything else) can be stolen and exchanged for money--with money being the primary means of achieving and maintaining social status in our culture--then we have a circumstance conducive to perpetual theft.
Why would a drug dealer sell drugs? For the money, of course. Why would a corporation sell products and services? Well, you see, the corporation does so for the same reason the drug dealer does: for the money. However, the corporation is a group whereas the drug dealer is merely an individual. Thus the drug dealer isn't subjected to the degree of group conformity and peer pressure as the individual who works for a corporation. Also, the employee of a corporation occasionally works with such anonymity while trying to manipulate the customer out of his money that the corporate employee is sometimes as underhanded and unsociable as the bandanna-wearing thief. Besides, when peer pressure and striving for status are combined with the corporate agenda of profits first, the chances of underhandedness and unsociability are more than doubled.
Another means of retarding and repressing human sexuality is by propagating unrealistic expectations and contradictory ideas:
The notion that the satisfactory female requires a "Barbie Doll" like body and sexual desire that can be switch to and fro from sexless prude to nymphomanic is propagated. The unrealistic expectation leads to feeling of sexual inadequacy, which in turn lead to sexual inhibitions.
The notion that the satisfactory male must have a "Ken Doll" like body and a male organ like the horse is propagated. Yet, the normal female that is subjected to a horse-like organ is not going to experience pleasure. And her vagina will no longer be "normal" after being stretched and distended by such an organ. Then, on the other hand, the contrary notion that a lesbian, who of course has no penis at all, can satisfy a female better than any male is propagated. These contradictory ideas lead to widespread confusion. And conbined with unrealistic expectations, such as the supposed need for an abnormally large penis, lead to feeling of sexual inadequacy for the majority, which in turn lead to widespread sexual inhibitions.
One can logically state that the person who feels the present prevalent supposedly satisfactory sexual requirements of individuals are realistic is a retarded person. But the sexual retardation is the consequence of being taught unrealistic expectations. However, no doubt part of these unrealistic expectations are not just the result of ignorance spreading ignorance but also the the result of corporations trying to sell items to "correct" the problem that they have caused the retarded individual to imagine is real.
18. Watch for more Facts4u to come...
Facts4u.com is presently undergoing reconstruction
as a result of GoDaddy Corporation's hurtful disruption in hosting
services for all of my Websites hosted with them.
(Side Note: I've come to realize the corporation can be compared to a gang of bandits. The bandit works under the anonymity provided by a bandana. A gang of corporate individuals work under the anonymity provided by hiding behind the guise of the corporation.)
Please keep checking back for more Facts4U. I'll try to update the page at least once a week.
For any suggestions or submissions, or to report errors or bad links, please click HERE