<I think> Internet ← Sociology ↑ Psychology → Philosophy ↓ Humanities

Curiosity- Science vs. God. How Howkings questions His existence and creations.

Ancient people translated unexplained things that it was God’s creation or will – laugh the sun was considered to be the wrath of God.

Forces of nature today explained by science back in time took the shape of God in the human imagination. So what was God to Ancient people? Force or something they couldn’t not even understand, but explain with any known reasoning. As natural way of mankind is assuming everything is a consequence of for some event.

God is a product of human imagination in response the continuous need to satisfy curiosity.

And no linkage to cause resulted with conclusion – it must be God. Some intelligent people must realized that it is a temporary explanation and sooner or later, people are going to find out the truth and explain mysterious act of God with scientific the facts. Now we would call such person prophet or seer (prophecy tellers). Where in fact whole secret is deep and very accurate understanding of human nature and taking general human behaviour predicting where it might
lead us. Taking on the account that billions of people tried to predict the future, 20 of the were accurate doesn’t give them special powers does it?

Basic instincts archetype triangle – power money & sex
So why some were saying “curiosity is the first degree to hell” and the science is an act of Satan? Because they feared to lose their power over others? Loose their comfortable lives? Loosing status of privileged. Nothing more than simple fact of manipulating masses to achieve personal satisfaction, social position and satisfy basic instincts triangle – power money & sex.

We can not deny that curiosity is one of the important driving forces of development of civilization. Challenging environment and questioning processes is the most important argument which allowed humanity come so far.

But I am afraid we are still at very early stage of our intelligence and civilization development. Stage which does not allow us yet to understand how universe works same way thousand years ago people could not explain why there is eclipse of the sun. Thanks to people like Galileo, Einstein and other prominent people who contributed so much to mankind. Some directly, others indirectly giving others background to finding a solution/explanations. Howkins theory might be not giving direct or understandable answers. But definitely it is showing completely new approach, new angle of seeing things.  Maybe not in our lifetime, but maybe in our lifetime stroke, spark of “insanely-simple” light will be born is someone’s head after reading such articles?

However we cannot abandon  idea of God as it is with as for thousand of years. It is not something you can just walk out and say it out loud. But what we can do is to take small step and try to change it a little. Trying to convince people not to think about God as creator and forces we do not understand, but forces we do know very well and understand very well. God as part of human nature which pushes us to do good, be creative, feel compassion and love. God as a strength
which allows us to help other people.  God as good force appearing in name of God, Karma, Buddha, love or whatever you want to call it. God is nothing else than “will power” of human nature.

Answering question does God exist, did He created universe? Answer still remain unchanged: WE DON’T KNOW.  As for me  it is believing in good side of people (at least some of them…and maybe
not always…) hmm…

What if we managed to send back in time piece of information or even human being? What if that someone was named Jesus? Definitely he was wise man who seem to realize or be aware of facts we know today or/and will know in next 100, 200, 500 years?  What if there is nothing more to that than just us – humans from the future? What if there is but in different way we anticipated?

We don’t really know, do we? But we definitely want to know. And that is why I am certain that sooner or later we going to find out.

Psychology { inkblot test } secret behind 10 inkblot cards-images

Is not what you see, it is how you react to the image.

The Rorschach Test, inkblot test or Psychodiagnostik designed by a Swiss psychologist named Hermann Rorschach [1885-1922] it is quite simple. There are 10 official inkblot cards.

The performer shows the cards one by one to the patient, asking what they originally saw and what made them think that while carefully watching every move the patient makes. The images themselves are only one component of the test, whose focus is the analysis of the perception of the images.
It can be described as projective-type of test. In psychology, a projective test is a personality test designed to let a person respond to ambiguous stimuli, presumably revealing hidden emotions and internal conflicts. This is different from an “objective test” in which responses are analyzed according to a universal standard (for example, a multiple choice exam). The responses to projective tests are content analyzed for meaning rather than being based on presuppositions about meaning, as is the case with objective tests.

The general theoretical position behind projective tests is that whenever a specific question is asked, the response will be consciously-formulated and socially determined. These responses do not reflect the respondent’s unconscious or implicit attitudes or motivations. The respondent’s deep-seated motivations may not be consciously recognized by the respondent or the respondent may not be able to verbally express them in the form demanded by the questioner. Advocates of projective tests stress that the ambiguity of the stimuli presented within the tests allow subjects to express thoughts that originate on a deeper level than tapped by explicit questions. Projective tests lost some of their popularity during the 1980s and 1990s in part because of the overall loss of popularity of the psychoanalytic method and theories. Despite this, they are still used quite frequently.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test

How to sell artificial liquid containing acid and other chemicals as “friendly&organic” drink

Criticism implies judgment = There’s No Such Thing as Constructive Criticism

Would you mind if I gave you some feedback? -  What that actually means is “Would you mind if I gave you some negative feedback, wrapped in the guise of constructive criticism, whether you want it or not?

The problem with criticism is that it challenges our sense of value. Criticism implies judgment and we all recoil from feeling judged. As Daniel Goleman has noted, threats to our esteem in the eyes of others are so potent they can literally feel like threats to our very survival.

The conundrum is that feedback is necessary. It’s the primary means by which we learn and grow. So what’s the best way to deliver it in a way that it provides the greatest value — meaning the recipient truly absorbs and acts on it?

There are three key behaviors, I believe, and they’re each grounded in the recognition that what we say is often less important than how we say it.

1. The first mistake we often make is giving feedback when we are feeling that our own value is at risk. That’s a recipe for disaster, and it happens far more commonly than we think, or are aware.

If we’re feeling threatened or diminished by another person’s perceived shortcomings, providing “constructive criticism” becomes secondary to getting our value back. We’re more likely to be reactive, insensitive and even hurtful.

If it’s about us, it’s not truly about them. Any time we provide feedback with the goal of getting someone to better meet our needs, rather than being responsive to theirs, it’s unlikely to prompt the desired outcome.

A classic example is the parent who confuses his own worth with his child’s performance, and reacts to the child’s missteps with harshness and judgment rather than sensitivity and compassion.

2. The second mistake we make in giving feedback is failing to hold the other person’s value in the process. Even the most well-intentioned criticism will, more often than not, prompt us to feel our value is at risk, and under attack.

When that happens, the primal impulse is to defend ourselves. The more the person you are criticizing feels compelled to defend her value, the less capable she becomes of absorbing what she’s hearing.

I once had an employee who was highly competent and detail-driven, and rarely made mistakes. Partly this grew out of her fierce perfectionism and her outsize fear of the consequences of being wrong.

Her automatic instinct was to deny responsibility for any misstep. When I felt the need to bring one to her attention, I learned it was crucial to begin by reassuring her that I cared about her, and that I had continuing confidence in her abilities. Only then could she truly take in what I was saying.

When you’re inclined to offer specific feedback, pause and ask yourself first how you’d feel if someone gave you that feedback. If you would feel uncomfortable or defensive, assume anyone else would too.

3. The third mistake we make is to assume that that we’re right about whatever it is we’re inclined to say. Like lawyers, we take a series of facts and weave them together into a story that supports and justifies the case we’re seeking to make.

The problem is that our stories aren’t necessarily true. They’re simply one interpretation of the facts. It makes much more sense to think about offering feedback in a spirit of humble exploration rather than declaration, dialogue rather than monologue, curiosity rather than certainty. Humility is the recognition that we don’t know, even when we think we know. As Steven Covey says, “Seek first to understand.”

Ultimately, we’d be better off eliminating concepts like “feedback” and “constructive criticism” from our lexicons altogether. They’re polarizing, and mostly destructive. We need to think of these interchanges instead as opportunities for honest inquiry and genuine learning.

“Here’s the story I’m telling myself about what just happened,” we might say. “Have I got that right, or am I missing something?”

That’s exactly what I intend to say the next time I’m inclined to ask someone, “Would you mind if I gave you some feedback?”

source: http://blogs.hbr.org/schwartz/2011/11/theres-no-such-thing-as-constr.html

Also worth trying:
Take the suggestion onto yourself (“I was thinking about” instead of “you should do this”).

Us-Them distinctions – complex group mechanism of destruction {hypocrite-gene}

Distinction is a social force that places different values on different individuals. The criteria for such judgements have always been a matter of controversy and subject to criticism. They are, furthermore, subject to constant change.

In his book La Distinction, which was published in 1979, Pierre Bourdieu describes how those in power define aesthetic concepts such as “taste”. His research shows how social class tends to determine a person’s likes and interests, and how distinctions based on social class are reinforced in daily life.

The 2004 book The Rebel Sell describes “distinction” as a social arms race, in which social styles are in constant development, and those who do not follow the development become stale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_%28social%29

We all have hypocrite-gene inside us.

Positive Psychology {Happiness depends on set point}

hedonic Adaptation – The pleasure acquiring new things, e.g. acquiring a new car, often wears off quite quickly.

What makes us happy? What determines hapiness?

Researchers have focused on questions such as “ what behaviours and attitudes positively affect happiness and self-fulfillment? Can we learn to be happy?
What makes us happy anyhow?

What makes us happy anyhow?

Surprising, happiness researcher Sonia Lyubomirsky discovered that only 10% of our happiness is due to our circumstances e.g. whether we are rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, beautiful or plain, married or divorced etc. The low contribution of circumstances to our happiness level is explained by the principle of hedonic adaptation i.e. in plain English, we get used to even the most marvellous and life changing circumstances , and within about 3 months we hardly notice the difference!

50% of our happiness is in our genetic pre -disposition.  So this leaves us with the fact that a very large slice of our happiness levels (40%)is due to the way we think and behave, what Lyubomirsky calls intentional behaviour. And the good news is that we can change these!

Researchers have identified three types of “happy lives”

1)      The Pleasant Life– the life of pleasure (the hedonic life).Experience as many positive emotions as possible.  Savour and amplify those moments.

2)      The Good life –  flow, the life of engagement ( the eudaimonic life ). Using your signature strengths*, what is deeply characteristic of you, every day ie. much of your time is spent in flow, in being fully engaged in what you are doing.

3)      The Meaningful Life- much of your day is spent in pursuit of your strongest values, your “noble mission” , your overall “big goal” which gives meaning to everything you do and may involve an attachment to something larger than yourself.

And finally, the advice of Ed Diener, happiness researcher: if you have no goal, other than than your personal happiness,you’ll never achieve it! If you want to be happy pursue something else vigorously, and happiness will catch up with you.

Courtesy of  http://positivepsychology.ie/index.php/articles/happiness

Understanding Human Behavior – Good vs bad. Double rooted personality based on primal instincts and intelligence as baseground of any mankind society and prediction of our future

Social Phobia, social anxiety disorder, excessive shyness, social inhibition

Social phobia, also called social anxiety disorder, is the third most common mental health disorder after depression and substance abuse, affecting as many as 10 million Americans. Social phobia is an anxiety disorder involving intense distress in response to public situations. Individuals with social phobia typically experience symptoms resembling panic during a social encounter. These situations may include speaking in public, using public restrooms, eating with other people, or engaging in social contact in general.

Persons with this disorder fear being humiliated or embarrassed in social and/or performance situations by their actions and may become intensely anxious, with an increased heart rate, diaphoresis, and other signs of autonomic arousal. These physical symptoms may cause additional anxiety, often leading to a conditioned fear response that reinforces their anxiety in public situations.

The onset of social phobia may or may not be abrupt, often manifesting after a stressor or humiliating social experience in an individual with a childhood history of excessive shyness or social inhibition. Social phobia is considered a disorder if it is severe enough to adversely affect social or occupational functioning. That is, individuals with true social phobia go to great lengths to avoid social situations, usually to their own detriment. The fear of embarrassment is egodystonic, and persons with social phobia are distressed by their symptoms.

The median delay from onset to seeking treatment can be as long as 28 years.

Don’t worry if you experiencing increased heart rate before your job interview or speech on the front of hundreds it is rather natural and desirable symptom indicating your healthy attitude (respect) towards another human being and society. But if you will turn great job offer down because you are afraid of your exposure or failure at the interview, then you might consider asking for second opinion about your fears.

August 2011. Crisis of globalization?

(Reuters) – The crises at the heart of the international financial and political system go beyond the debt woes currently gripping the Western world and to the heart of the way the global economy has been run for over two decades.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/us-analysis-debt-crisis-idUSTRE77726Z20110808

Violence has broken out for a third consecutive day in London, with riot police deployed and firefighters tackling blazes across the capital.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14450248

The main US share index, the Dow Jones, has closed down 5.6%, despite US President Barack Obama moving to try to reassure investors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14451687

World stock markets plunge over US rating cut

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0808/economy.html

Volatility on bond markets is set to continue despite a fall in the price being charged to buy Spanish and Italian debt.

The European Central Bank’s decision to buy the two countries’ bonds brought some stability to the bond markets today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0808/ecb-business.html

Matthew effect?Open “Civilizationism project” as PDF document

In sociology, the Matthew effect (or accumulated advantage) is the phenomenon where “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” (source: wikipedia.org).

We should seek the greatest value of our action – Stephen Hawking: “There is no heaven”

Stephen Hawking dismisses belief in God in an exclusive interview with the Guardian. Photograph: Solar & Heliospheric Observatory/Discovery Channel
A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a “fairy story” for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain’s most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

Hawking, who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the age of 21, shares his thoughts on death, human purpose and our chance existence in an exclusive interview with the Guardian today.

The incurable illness was expected to kill Hawking within a few years of its symptoms arising, an outlook that turned the young scientist to Wagner, but ultimately led him to enjoy life more, he has said, despite the cloud hanging over his future.

“I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first,” he said.

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” he added.

Hawking’s latest comments go beyond those laid out in his 2010 book, The Grand Design, in which he asserted that there is no need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe. The book provoked a backlash from some religious leaders, including the chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, who accused Hawking of committing an “elementary fallacy” of logic.

The 69-year-old physicist fell seriously ill after a lecture tour in the US in 2009 and was taken to Addenbrookes hospital in an episode that sparked grave concerns for his health. He has since returned to his Cambridge department as director of research.

The physicist’s remarks draw a stark line between the use of God as a metaphor and the belief in an omniscient creator whose hands guide the workings of the cosmos.

In his bestselling 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking drew on the device so beloved of Einstein, when he described what it would mean for scientists to develop a “theory of everything” – a set of equations that described every particle and force in the entire universe. “It would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God,” he wrote.

The book sold a reported 9 million copies and propelled the physicist to instant stardom. His fame has led to guest roles in The Simpsons, Star Trek: The Next Generation and Red Dwarf. One of his greatest achievements in physics is a theory that describes how black holes emit radiation.

In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: “We should seek the greatest value of our action.”

In answering another, he wrote of the beauty of science, such as the exquisite double helix of DNA in biology, or the fundamental equations of physics.

Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader in advance of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, in which he will address the question: “Why are we here?”

In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged. “Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in,” he said.

Hawking suggests that with modern space-based instruments, such as the European Space Agency’s Planck mission, it may be possible to spot ancient fingerprints in the light left over from the earliest moments of the universe and work out how our own place in space came to be.

His talk will focus on M-theory, a broad mathematical framework that encompasses string theory, which is regarded by many physicists as the best hope yet of developing a theory of everything.

M-theory demands a universe with 11 dimensions, including a dimension of time and the three familiar spatial dimensions. The rest are curled up too small for us to see.

Evidence in support of M-theory might also come from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva.

One possibility predicted by M-theory is supersymmetry, an idea that says fundamental particles have heavy – and as yet undiscovered – twins, with curious names such as selectrons and squarks.

Confirmation of supersymmetry would be a shot in the arm for M-theory and help physicists explain how each force at work in the universe arose from one super-force at the dawn of time.

Another potential discovery at the LHC, that of the elusive Higgs boson, which is thought to give mass to elementary particles, might be less welcome to Hawking, who has a long-standing bet that the long-sought entity will never be found at the laboratory.

Hawking will join other speakers at the London event, including the chancellor, George Osborne, and the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Science, truth and beauty: Hawking’s answers

What is the value in knowing “Why are we here?”

The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can’t solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value.

You’ve said there is no reason to invoke God to light the blue touchpaper. Is our existence all down to luck?

Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.

So here we are. What should we do?

We should seek the greatest value of our action.

You had a health scare and spent time in hospital in 2009. What, if anything, do you fear about death?

I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

What are the things you find most beautiful in science?

Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations. Examples include the double helix in biology, and the fundamental equations of physics.”

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven