First: Raksha - please do not consider this spamming . . . so, I'll apologize in advance for all on this thread . . .it is a discussion on the relevancy of what is depicted on KB . . .
O K!' and while we're at it lets throw Shakespeare and Marx ino the mix!
I'd definitely throw Marx out . . . sorry . . . but he is popular these days where on this planet exactly (Kerala, Naxalites, and Nepalis excepted)? And surely, we're not resorting to Willie to help understand human behavior
wrong again' they're a pervasive and rampant part of our daily lives (especially in the western world) eg. the Freudean slip and the tip of the iceberg.
It does not naturally follow that since these expressions remain in fairly common use, that the underlying theories are valid . . . I mean, we also use the term 'quantum leap' and there aint no such thing . . .
Don't get me wrong, I am no Freudean (refer to my disclaimers in the initial post) yet Im not too chuffed to see the dismissal of a major influence in the field with such disdain, in true American fashion,
American fashion? Belle any number of scientists in this field are transplanted entities on American soil (we'll start with Crick, move on to Damasio, Bach-Y-Rita, Koch, Ramachandran - just as examples that come readily to mind) . . . and just because Freud and Co. have been major influences, one must recognize that they were a product of their own times . . . would you posit that there hasn't been a major revolution in the understanding of at least which parts of the brain are activated under which conditions (how the brain actually processes and stores information as yet, remains in the realm of science fiction)? Who should have precedence? I weigh in on the side of modern neuroscience . . .
did u say concious and unconcious' I thought you were saying saying Freud (and Jung) were obsolete!
Belle . . . there are completely new definitions of conscious and unconscious . . . you may want to pick up one of Damasio's eminently readable books . . . core consciousness, extended consciousness and a whole lot of absolutely fascinating stuff . . . Koch's 'The Quest for Consciousness', on the other hand is an obtuse read . . . this is the next frontier in science . . .
Absolutely not!
OK . . . then you must point me to where there is irrefutable evidence that these concepts are still meaningful . . . preferably in peer reviewed journals . . .
Really? And why is that? they fell out at age 12 (that is abt grade 7 time right?) and up until then they were chums?
Sorry . . . you lost me here . . . but, for me to buy-in into the validity of this, I would have to see the torchlight of neuroscience illuminating daddy-love type concepts . . .
we have at hand a very specific example set firmly within well-known cultural restraints and norms'
An 8 year difference makes one partner "much" older?! Well known cultural restraints/norms doesn't imply immutability . . . culture is an amorphous phenomenon, fortunately, always on the move . . .
May I just add that, an hour glass figure in the female form is considered attractive to males across all cultures 'theres plenty of conclusive research to support that!
Right! Except that it didn't used to be . . . Reubens was painting a whole different body type . . . amongst the Japanese, extreme measures are taken (to this day) to give the female body a uniform cylindrical look . . . they pad their curves out so as to look elegant/ideal in Kimono . . . and in that culture, it's the nape of the neck that is considered erogenous, not cleavage . . .
Males of our species (and vastly around the animal kingdom) are visually oriented' that is a fact! Signals that go to the brain to produce the endorphins invaraibly come from the eyes and the nose'
Well . . . so are females . . . visually oriented . . . except when vision and smell are not the sensory modalities . . . blind people are incapable of feeling attraction? The brain is a wonderfully plastic organ . . . there is some wonderful work done by the late Bach-Y-Rita where sensors on the tongue stimulated the visual cortex allowing some degree of sight in sightless people!
Ahh' biology is superlative!!' something tangible and easily investigated!
But Belle . . . why would 'psychology' not have the same limitations?
youth especially in females is a sign of fertility and the ability to reproduce'
And what . . . Simi is not youthful?!
And I was convinced I was in true love at age 17!! Now yo tell me! Darn!
Of course you were convinced!! And sadly, yes, you were wrong (assuming that the recipient of your feelings is not now your better half) 😊
Mr Sethi has managed to raise a spineless fool like Anuj... where did the genes go Gal? what happened to the DNA! something to do with upbringing perhaps and and not just biology!
Perfectly well explicable . . . I avered that he got nothing but recessive genes from both parents - or an unholy complement of recessive genes . . . so there were no grand mutations (almost always fatal) . . . however, nurture did have it's inevitable but less significant role . . . I also suggest that he's 'subdued/spineless' because Mr. Sethi is a hard role model to emulate . . . I cannot believe how he actually treats Anuj . . . not exactly fun to have your pater screaming at you . . . especially after you're adult and married "cat got your tongue?!! What the hell are you upto?!! Couldn't find your biodata if the lights were turned on?! Your mum did fine, your wife had best learn! You can see yourself out if your in-laws are inflcited on us! both the house and shop are mine
