Wow. Another judgment!!! How is that helping? Yes he can be credited for as arduous his campaign was, in my opinion. Be free to disagree with that. It still does not negate the fact the people who choose to make disparaging comments are suffering from an insecure psychosis.

Racism is an organized attempt to justify a superiority over one who physically appears different.

Humans use discernment is looks while developing learning. They inherently discriminate on inane things such as preferring candy vs. broccoli... When it becomes discrimination against others simple because of the way the people look, and a systematic oppression of their thriving in a society that purports freedom, liberty and all men are created equal, then that is what sociologists are calling racism. There are further definitions.

I professionally think racism is a neuropsychological pathology. As children, they use discrimination to learn, but when the parent/environment foster traumatic events, anxieties, where logic and reason is suppressed to act on anger inappropriately, then a psychosis develops. And as this psychosis is nurtured, the very neurons and brain chemicals inappropriately flux into a pathological condition that is manifested as negative behavior. As it further develops, the person's psyche deteriorates and leads to a destructive behavior that requires substances to self-soothe, which does not really work for this condition. Eventually, as the person ages, a chronic illness develops and they die. Rarely are these deaths peaceful...

Curing is not the goal here. Treating the underlying condition, a psychosis likened to a schizo-affective disorder, would be in order here. However, the biological and medical treatments are not there yet, and are unfunded at this time.

Cure is an inappropriate term with mental health conditions. Maybe oneday when scientists have a better understanding of behavioral genetics, but, cure is not what therapists or psychiatrist do. At best with healthcare being as it is, they treat for the condition as a manageable condition.

That is the real-time quality of care that they do now. I am sure more GC Doctors could speak on that.

So this differs what Social Scientist might think. But this is what the genetic and biological research is showing scientists now... Oh well... Whatever...

Eh...just don't like seeing people put on pedastols that they have yet to earn.

ETA: As for your judgment of people making those statements, the only "insecure psychosis" that many of them are probably dealing with is attention whoredom and fear of the unknown. That's the recipe for an "ism."

The way people look and anything that identifies a group as "the other." Names, voices, religious denominations, social networks, etc.

The other part of our conceptualization of racism is that people aren't discriminating against others because they have nothing better to do with their time or for genetic and biological reasons. It is about a sense of threat or fear. Those who have genetic or biological issues could just as easily chosen something other than racist behavior to manifest. So while these genetic and biological issues may be correlated with individual racist behavior for some people, it isn't a cause or a strong correlate that is necessary and sufficient for the racist structure. However, I would love to read the genetic and biological research on racism. Interdisciplinary research is what's up.

Correct but I find your assertions very interesting.

So do you posit that only people with the neuropsychological pathology display behaviors that reinforce this structure? So this is all just about racists with certain upbringings and who have these traits? And if science can ever get to the bottom of their "disorders," this racist structure will collapse?

I said "the other" because I decided not to use the scientific term called "phenotype"--it is the way the genetics looks and how it is inherited. Some phenotypes are dictated by genotype, some are dictated by epigentics--I would say more than we, scientists, once thought. There are also levels of regulation from microRNA content to mutated proteins.

All of that to say, we know some basics about how people have their phenotypes. But the whole story is far from complete.


So, in my professional opinion, behavior is reinforced. When behavior is negatively reinforced, a hierarchical structure can develop. But that is not understood from a molecular genetic level because of the stochastic nature of this kinds of structure. All behavioral genetics can do is an arbitrary empirical analysis--tweak this neuron, get this effect.

When you say "racists", I think you are viewing this issue as a current event. I am positing that racism evolved from a pathological condition. I.e. What would be the biological reason why racism would evolve in the level that it has over time? What purpose does it serve, biologically? Control of populations? Religion aside, it must be giving those who manifest it some kind of "rationalization" as to why they do it? Otherwise, why would someone choose to pursue this route to this structure--no matter the destruction it causes?

After study of substance abuse and addiction, racist behavior is extremely similar to a combination of schizo-affective disorders with substance abuse and addiction...

It is called aversion and reward...

Only negative environments bring about fulmination of racism--or bigotry, overall.

PTSD is thought to be reinforced by traumatic events--the human brain is incapable of processing the imagery after the event, so what it does is segregate the bad image into bottom "unused" parts of the mind (or at least that what the research is suggesting), and during a subconscious periods--i.e. sleep--the thoughts re-arise and ruminate. These anxious thoughts cause a physical manifestation of panic, increased heart rates, sweatiness, and fainting. Without relief, people get major clinical depression leading to suicidal thoughts.

To bake your noodle more, apparently depending on the circumstance, PTSD can be inherited and given to resulting children...

It is possible that "extreme hatred" with "gross anger" evolved in humans as a discriminatory survival tactic maybe for foodstuffs during starvation, or protection from illnesses, IDK. And a whole hierarchical structure was "rationalized" and developed to justify a bad thought disordered behavior. Otherwise, how come humans will kill large swaths of people, like in genocide? As lame as it sounds, humans did that because of poor environments due to a lack of resources and that's the default system humans use when a "morality" comes into play... That does not make it right--this is not a judgment statement--it is that carnal nature that humans manifest...

Just like when we see lions hunt the wildebeests--the lions do not love or hate them, they just have to eat. The wildebeets know that one is going to die, which one is a different issue... Same deal with the great white sharks and the seals... Maybe racism as a behavior gives the predatory nature humans have?

Only difference is today, humans can make a choice to hopefully evolve.

If the underlying manifestation is discovered in bigoted people, believe me it will be within 5 years a drug clinical trial with therapeutics will be in place...

Think what Chantix does...

Dr. AKA_Monet

AKA Monet, I actually said "the other" to expand on how groups determine who is like them and not like them. It is what we call "othering."

Thanks for sharing your position with me. While I encourage interdisciplinary research, I'll have to leave the genetic and biological racism stuff to you all because I, frankly, don't see the utility of it. :)

Lindsey Boggs...enough said.

I think we all need to keep in mind that yes, this historic election is going to make the worst of the racists show their true colors, but that there were still enough people to vote for Obama to show that it was not the majority of the people in the United States.

As for the socialist type comments, I think those feelings are pretty equivalent to how some of us felt when Bush was elected. Being afraid that the candidate you didn't support will really screw things up is not an uncommon feeling.

I am not of the mind that we have to support the President just because he is the President. We do not have a KGB seeking out people who disagree with the government. We have freedom of speech. The people who are crying "Socialist" will be proven wrong in 4 years when we still have a capitalist society.

May I be proven wrong about my concerns and skepticism about Obama.

But "spreading the wealth" does bother me quite a bit.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with what you said about this.
If it makes you feel any better, what you told your 4th grader is what my son (who was a 4th grader at the time) told his 1st grade sister. He wanted us to vote for Obama in the primary, she wanted us to vote for Clinton. I asked them each to tell me why, to try and convince me. My daughter said she wanted Hillary Clinton to win the primary because she was a woman. My son told her you don't vote for someone because they are a man or woman, or white or black, but for the one you think will do the best job.

I hope he'll never lose that ideal.
If Warren Buffet, one of Obama's chief economic advisorss, isn't worried, I don't think anyone else needs to be either.

That's because Warren Buffet can afford to spread some of his wealth around. Oh to be a multi millionaire!

Maybe I can still make it in Hollywood, I think I've got some acting chops ;)

I'll come see your movies! :D

(Hey, if Paris Hilton can be in movies, why can't you? Or me?)

He probably will. It's easy to say such things when you're a child whose social world is simple and innocent but even children learn differences early and operate based on them. As his parent, you'll know how to be realistic in your expectations of him while teaching him to do his best to hold true to that ideal. :)

Yeah - I'm not sure this is such a glittering endorsement, since wealth distribution is primarily a social policy wrapped in dollar signs, although I do trust Buffet's ability to create and maintain wealth in a relatively stable market fashion.

I think the problem, for most people, is simply the term "redistribution of wealth" - the reality is that redistribution doesn't need to happen via taxation or social welfare, but rather through educational opportunity and access to jobs and resources, and that seems to be the crux of the Obama plan at this point. We'll see if it happens, but I feel like most people's fears are somewhat unfounded at this point.

I know, and I'm ready to be realistic.

One of the pluses of Asperger's though, if a "plus" is the way to put it, is a certain indifference to what others think. Sometimes, that's a problem, but sometimes, not so much.
I actually agree with you -- the Warren Buffet reference was a little tongue-in-cheek. I actually had originally typed a longer post along the lines of what you said, but I tried to be pithy instead. Oh well.

I agree that the problem was the, as far as I know, relatively isolated use of the term "redistribution of wealth." Although I think that the context of what Obama said throughout the campaign lines up with what you describe (opportunity and access), the McCain campaign (understandably) used it to charge "Socialism." The Warren Buffet references ties to that -- whatever else one wants to say about him, I don't think anyone would accuse Warren Buffet of supporting socialism.