Oscdknptyfzwrryayldp_medium
0 Documents
13 Subscribers
6 Reads
0680624ef4
Stacked_icons_15x15
The Monk(ey) Scribbled:
We all know and agree that Patriarch Men rules the public world (taking decisions in politics, finances, etc.), but Patriarch Women rules the home and family; in fact, scientific investigations demonstrate that 73% of the decisions are taken by women at house. Psychotherapist and psychoanalyst have known, from a long time ago, that mothers are the main issue for children mental health. Here are some examples based on scientific evidence published the last six years: official statistics says that -in my country- women kill relatives a 550% more times than men; filmic evidence shows that mothers give less attention to their boy's emotions, than to their daughter's emotions; for a woman at work, the main source of conflict is... the other women! And check this one: Scientific studies demonstrates that women are so in infidelity like men, the only difference is that women lies till the end, even to scientific investigators! And one more: In big cities, women choose men as partners not because of love affection, but for considerations about social and economic status the men could give to her and her children. There is no need to say, of course, that if you want to know about men violence, simply take a look on TV news. So, please, we all are just only humans after all, and the black-and-white ideological equation of man=bad things, woman=good things (like in the feminist book "The Challis and The Blade"), it is simply not true. In the past, I use to say: "Well, men violence could kill you and women violence could make you crazy". Now, sadly, I have to say, women are doing same bad/good things like us -patriarch men- use to did. Clearly, is not a sex or gender issue. So, this world and its troubles are a common responsibility of man and woman. The rest is only ideology, a part of the sex war and the struggle for "power to dominate" between man and women. And we are all patriarchs/matriarchs individuals, because we receive that kind of education and there is no other human world to live in (yet). We have an issue here, and that is: It's just humanity in its struggle for a wise way of living, with happiness and justice for all as our ideal.
09 / 02 / 2009
20bbaa8ee9
Stacked_icons_15x15
The Monk(ey) Scribbled:
It seems this is not a book by Stephen Hawking!
09 / 02 / 2009
03cd1e9b26
Stacked_icons_15x15
The Monk(ey) Scribbled:
Excellent book! It makes clear that when we only adopt the language of sciences, with no science-facts behind to support the statements, literature does not become science at all. The result is mere psycho-bla-blá, and a discredit to psychology, sociology, etc.

alan sokal

cevirgec

101

08 / 29 / 2009
5225ca85dc
Stacked_icons_15x15
The Monk(ey) Scribbled:
Well, sorry guys... but neurosciences tell us, just from the mid of 80's that our brain work almost in totally in every task, so... this thing of left and right brain is not true in science.

Left Brain Right Brain

Vinee

46,177

08 / 28 / 2009
Db057a3148

santurchena Replied:

Not exactly true. I have a nonverbal learning disorder, which means that my right cerebral hemisphere doesn't work very well: my right brain IQ is 97 and my left brain IQ is 136, while my visual processing is 40. Everyone's brain is different and even if most people use their brain in its totality, it is possible for people to favor one side slightly over the other.

11 / 19 / 2009

Db057a3148

santurchena Replied:

Not exactly true. I have a nonverbal learning disorder, which means that my right cerebral hemisphere doesn't work very well: my right brain IQ is 97 and my left brain IQ is 136, while my visual processing is 40. Everyone's brain is different and even if most people use their brain in its totality, it is possible for people to favor one side over the other.

11 / 19 / 2009

666070f840
Stacked_icons_15x15
The Monk(ey) Scribbled:
From the scientific point of view, there are two different levels of analysis here, and two different phenomenons too: on one level, in our common sence reflexion, we have the natural spontaneous psychological preference for the more complex explanations, as the psychological experiments demonstrates, and -in another different level- we have the uses in philosophy and/or science of the methodologycal rule of Ockham's Razor ("the entities must not proliferate unnecessarily"). That's one of the reasons why we prefere Newton's explanation, instead Ptolomeus one, of the Solar System mechanism and the revolutions of the planets around the Sun; and Newton's over Quantum Physics' in our explanations of the daily physics phenomenons (like the atraction of the Moon over the seas, here at Earth, or the downfall of an apple). In simple terms, if you had two different explanations for the same situation, and those two gave the same results, choose the simplest one. But alas, science is not only a matter of explanations, like religions or philosophy, but a combination of generative explanations (id est, explanations of the mechanism that produces the fact under study and how it works), plus repetitive observations and experimentations on controlated conditions, by means of what you put under examination the hypothetical explanations. That's why philosophy and religions are not science, but this last one can test some assertions of those more speculative disciplines.
08 / 16 / 2009