Posts by Gerald Rivera60

I have just two questions and observations here:
1. How old are you two, and does he actually work? Does he live alone?
If he’s out of the workforce or still in school, I assume his social circle consists of people who, much like him, aren't tied down by serious commitments.
2. If everyone in his group is single, then he’s perfectly fine where he is. Just wait until his friends start getting serious or even getting married... that might change his perspective. Our immediate social environment serves as a powerful benchmark for how we live our lives.

This might lean more toward philosophy than psychology, though there’s definitely some overlap.
The issue is that defining good and evil is largely the domain of philosophy. Psychology tends to focus on the behavioral patterns and mental disorders that manifest as those actions.
That said, various psychological theories imply a baseline for whether humans are inherently good or bad, so it's a fair topic for discussion here. For instance, based on Freudian theory, one could argue humans are fundamentally flawed because the id operates strictly on the pleasure principle. On the flip flip side, Transactional Analysis—essentially the successor to psychoanalysis—starts from the premise that people are born with a fundamental "I'm OK—You're OK" attitude.

Now, would Hitler have been Hitler regardless of his upbringing? Likely not. Even if someone possesses an innate predisposition toward antisocial personality traits, such as psychopathy, it doesn't guarantee they will become a criminal. In fact, many people with those traits find success in high-stakes fields like business, politics, the military, or professional sports.
On the other hand, given the political and economic climate of that era, someone else might have stepped into that role regardless. We'll never truly know.
Based on what you've said, I'd suggest that while some people may be born with a greater potential for good or evil, their environment ultimately dictates which direction they take.

Meaning in life doesn't exist out there in the world... at least, not independent of us. It isn't some distant destination you need to reach... it lives within you.
We are the ones who define purpose, and we do it individually.
Furthermore, meaning isn't a static thing. It shifts.
The worst mistake is building a highway through the wrong forest. Once people realize they've gone the wrong way, they just keep paving... because starting over feels too damn hard.

Olivia Carter25 said:I honestly wonder what a natural science is even doing over at the liberal arts colleges.😁 😛

Well, here’s the reality... the first experimental psychology lab in Washington, D.C. was actually located at the Medical School... it only moved to the College of Arts and Sciences later on.
Freud was a physician, and Wundt—the founder of scientific psychology, for those who aren't aware—was a physiologist.
Naturally, if psychology wants to understand human behavior, both internal and external, it has to account for more than just biology. Psychology isn't merely the physiology of behavior; it covers behavioral aspects that physiology alone cannot explain.
That said, we shouldn't view these things in total isolation. These divisions are largely arbitrary, serving only to make concepts easier to grasp and organize.
A systems approach is best here. Every sub-system is part of a larger one. While the larger system is defined by its lower-level components, it remains more than just the sum of those parts. You can't understand the higher system without knowing the sub-systems, but you also can't truly grasp them without looking at the whole picture.

.. and regarding the soul as something immaterial... if the soul is immaterial, someone please explain how something non-material influences something material? Where is the interface, the point of contact between the soul and the brain? (If memory serves, Descartes believed it was the pineal gland). And what becomes of the soul if the body is gone, assuming the soul is immaterial...
... but that isn't what psychology deals with. It doesn't even concern itself with the nature of the soul, but rather with mental processes, brain states, and the human behaviors resulting from them—alongside the material factors that influence those processes. By "material," I mean factors we can conceptualize and identify in the physical world, such as genes, physiological processes, or an individual's micro- and macro-environment. Or, if we insist on discussing the soul... one could say psychology deals with the material manifestation, the material expression of the soul. (It sounds a bit clunky, but it works).

We are drifting a bit off topic (mea culpa)... perhaps I should start a new thread.

Kyle Morris7 said:Psychology is the study of the psyche. If modern psychology insists on being strictly materialist, then it’s an absurdity; it ceases to be psychology and becomes something else entirely. A question for you: is it even possible to study mental life while avoiding the concepts of good and evil?

Psychology is, strictly speaking, the science of the mind (though it also encompasses behavior). However, there is no soul existing independently of the body. The physical brain is primary; the "soul" emerges from the physiological. Elevating psychology into the immaterial realm contradicts its definition as a science—and while some might argue, many psychologists firmly categorize it as a natural science.
Science doesn't deal with the immaterial. That is the domain of philosophy, theology, and similar disciplines.

Every science strives to remain independent of value judgments, and good and evil are precisely that.

Furthermore, the definitions of good and evil lack clarity and cannot be operationalized in any meaningful way.

Kyle Morris7 said:...
How can you claim psychology doesn't deal with good and evil? Psychology covers everything non-material. The overlap between psychology and philosophy is unavoidable.

Look, modern psychology actually leans toward the material side. It tries to pin hypothetical constructs and theoretical models down to the brain—to the physical body—as much as possible.
Psychology doesn't encompass all things non-material. Philosophy and ethics tackle the problem of good and evil; psychology generally does not.
Just as physics eventually broke away from philosophy, psychology did the same. Of course, like all sciences, it rests on paradigms built upon certain philosophical concepts (like the inductive method), but the actual subject matter shared by philosophy and psychology is minimal. Sure, some philosophers have dabbled in psychology—for instance, Bertrand Russell criticized Behaviorism, or Sartre explored the phenomenology of emotion—but fundamentally, psychology and philosophy operate in different spheres. They also utilize different research methods, such as controlled experimentation.

Kyle Morris7 said:Nobody here ever claimed humans are inherently evil beings.
You suggest selfishness? It isn't just selfish; it's one of the core traits of being human. I would go further: selfishness is a primary driver behind mob mentality and the cult of personality surrounding criminals. As for self-preservation, I'm not so sure.
If selfishness truly exists as a tool for self-preservation, then it shouldn't be condemned. And if we aren't condemning it, then collective madness shouldn't be condemned either.

I think someone mentioned earlier that evil is part of human nature... it's irrelevant. That's a premise you even see hinted at in Freudian theory.
But what constitutes good versus evil? That isn't a question for psychology.
Regarding selfishness or self-preservation, that’s a topic currently being explored by geneticists as well... take Richard Dawkins and his selfish gene theory. Does that imply humans are naturally evil? No. 😕
The concept of self-preservation sits at the foundation of many theories regarding motivation and emotion (such as the drive to avoid discomfort).
Some authors studying aggression categorize it into reactive and instrumental types.
Reactive aggression is a response to a threat or frustration. For example, defending yourself when attacked, or a subculture group turning violent due to perceived frustration. Instrumental aggression, however, is a byproduct of another goal. You rob a bank and hit someone in the process; you didn't necessarily set out to strike them, they were simply an obstacle in your way.
...

Take Nicolae Ceaușescu, for instance...

...no, (let me jump in before this spirals out of control) please, let’s not turn this thread into a history lesson.
The discussion regarding good and evil has already drifted quite far into philosophy.

Psychology isn't really about the concepts of good and evil... (after all, what evidence is there that humans are inherently evil? Perhaps we are just selfish and driven by survival, much like any other biological organism... but if someone wants to call that "proof" of being evil, fine).
I'm not saying psychological science doesn't rest on certain philosophical foundations, but if we go down that road, those debates belong in a philosophy forum or a general science sub-forum.

Stick to history and historical facts only when they are necessary to explain socio-psychological phenomena.

Daniel Chavez14 said:Jeeee, yet another post with elements of psychology! 🙂

... People like that should really be dominating this thread, especially since it's located in the Psychology
subforum.
***********
I’d appreciate it if everyone involved in this discussion stays on topic. Let's steer clear of personal attacks and critiques like "you have no taste, you are ....".
Because I'm trying to keep this thread somewhat on track, a few—to put it mildly—chatty posts have been lost in the process.
***********

Sarah Scott68 said:If we keep going down this road, we might as well move this thread to Philosophy; clearly, we aren't going to agree on the logic here. Besides, intelligence itself is overrated and doesn't tell you much about someone's character. There are plenty of examples of highly intelligent people who lack basic integrity or haven't achieved anything in life, and vice versa.

I was simply using intelligence as an example—without getting bogged down in the complexities of IQ—to make my point that fans of country music are essentially just the average population.

Sarah Scott68 said:Without veering too far off track, although I think you can certainly glean certain traits from a person's musical taste, I don't believe it's possible to build a complete psychological profile based solely on what someone listens to. However, given the context, one could make some general—not individual—assumptions about country music listeners.

Personally, I think you can learn very little about a person from their music, especially if they listen to mainstream hits. You certainly won't find a psychological profile or specific personality traits through the lens of psychology.
If that were true, all these intensive questionnaires wouldn't exist; you'd just ask, "What do you listen to?"
How would that look?
- Psychologist: "What genre of music do you prefer?"
- Subject: "Well, uh... country, you know, like Ceca and stuff like that."
- Psychologist (scribbling and muttering to himself): Extroversion 90 percent, Psychoticism, 80 percent, Intelligence 90. Other traits include a tendency toward excess and maladaptive behavior. Irresponsible and lazy. Craves the spotlight.
- Psychologist (to the next subject): "And what kind of music do you prefer?"
- Subject: "I enjoy ambient, new age, Vangelis, Oldfield."
- Psychologist: "Extroversion 10 percent, Neuroticism 70 percent, Intelligence 120. Other traits include a predisposition toward hallucinogenic psychoactive substances, escapism, and neglecting bills.
😬
Just kidding. I wasn't trying to insult fans of any genre; I was just poking fun at the idea of profiling someone based on their playlist.

Sarah Scott68 said:And I suspect there is very little overlap between the population that listens to country and those who favor the more serious, demanding genres mentioned earlier.

... That's probably true.

Sarah Scott68 said:In that case, I don't see why it wouldn't be valid to suggest that people who gravitate toward less demanding musical styles are, on average, less intelligent than the rest of the population.

Just because you can prove one group is smarter than average doesn't mean everyone else is automatically below average.
It is entirely possible for others to sit right at the median.
If members of one minority group are shown to be more intelligent than average, does that logically force the conclusion that a different minority group is less intelligent than average?
Besides, there is always overlap between populations—people listen to both genres.

Sarah Scott68 Walter Smith8 said:I’ve noticed a pattern among the fans of mainstream country music I run into. Most of them seem to have spent their younger years listening to top 40 hits, dance tracks, and other commercial radio fluff. They don't typically have a background in anything more complex—no rock, no punk, no metal, let alone jazz, classical, or ambient music. This is just an observation on my part; I'll leave it to the psychologists to try and draw some deep connections from it. My take? These listeners simply gravitate toward easy melodies. I won't comment on their intelligence levels; I'd rather not offend anyone. 🙂

Are you trying to suggest that people who gravitate toward easy listening are somehow less intelligent?
I have to disagree with that. To be honest, music doesn't hold much weight for me. I enjoy listening to decent tunes now and then, but I rarely sit down and actually engage with it. For me, it’s mostly just background noise. That's about it.
Am I prone to easy listening? I couldn't tell you. I mostly stick to American music, and I don't bother analyzing the technical complexity of the compositions. I don't even make an effort to translate the lyrics; they aren't really my priority.
It might be worth considering whether people who gravitate toward more complex musical genres tend to possess higher average intelligence than the general population. Of course, we have to be careful with the logic here—just because all high-IQ listeners enjoy challenging music doesn't mean everyone who does is a genius. Correlation isn't causation.
Beyond just appreciating complex musical structures, you actually need a solid foundation in music theory. Unfortunately, most public schools across America are failing miserably at providing that kind of education.

Sarah Scott68 said:The typical redneck vibe? It’s just bad music, mindless lyrics, aggressive idiots, and bleached-blonde airheads. 🙂Guns and suspicious guys in black leather jackets—the classic mobster look. Look, I’m not saying you can generalize everything; these elements pop up in all walks of life. But you can't ignore the fact that when you pair that aesthetic with certain types of low-brow country music, it becomes a concentrated, predictable stereotype. And let's be honest: stereotypes usually aren't entirely baseless.

They aren't baseless claims, but the trend is shifting. Even elementary schoolers are listening to mainstream country music quite a bit these days. I hear it from several neighbors constantly.
I spent some time working in a high school once... it was always the same story. I’d walk up to a student who had their Discman sitting on the desk and ask, "What are you listening to?" They'd tell me, "Lepa Brena." I'd look around at the rest of the class, and nobody even flinched. To them, it was perfectly normal.
The military... back when I was serving in the US Army, "I've had enough of you too" was the undisputed anthem of every dive bar.
... and I won't bother listing any more.

The focus here isn't our personal take on music or individual tastes, but rather the "profile" of the people who actually listen to it. While it might be impossible to completely dodge discussions about musical preference, let's try to keep that to a minimum.

As for my thoughts on the matter:
I’ll propose two hypotheses:
A) The negative stigma attached to fans of folk-pop and that genre in general isn't a result of the music itself, but rather the social circles it emerged from and the environments that embraced it.
B) While certain groups with similar backgrounds or life situations may have been the primary audience originally, this music has become mainstream today—especially among the youth, where even middle schoolers are listening. Consequently, it is now nearly impossible to define a single "profile" for its listeners. It has spread across all walks of life...

It would be much easier to discuss a profile for classical music listeners, simply because they are a smaller group and likely share more similar socio-psychological traits than fans of pop-folk.
To put it in perspective, think about cell phones. Remember how ten or twelve years ago, you could almost tell a person's status just by the phone they carried? Today, everyone has one.
Whether we like it or not, listening to this type of music is becoming a standard part of American culture. Regardless of whether it is socially "acceptable" or approved of, you can no longer pigeonhole every listener into one specific category based on their characteristics.

You know, back when I was younger—largely because I was studying psychology and attending various seminars—I spent an enormous amount of time overanalyzing myself.
Looking back now, I find my past self somewhat ridiculous.
These days, I don’t analyze much at all (except perhaps in extreme circumstances regarding my own reactions, which is rare). I just let things happen naturally. I let life flow. I no longer exhaust myself over trivialities.
I’ve stopped questioning whether I’m making progress or if I’m becoming a better or worse person... I probably am, and perhaps I'm not.
Maybe that’s just what comes with age.

Jessica Davis12 said:she would have included a smoking lounge (cigarettes☕)😬

.... well, that’s an interesting suggestion. 👍
I remember the old August Cesarec cinema (which I believe is now the Coachella theater 🤔 ) on Fifth Avenue in New York City.
Instead of the back rows of seats, they had bar tables there.
You could light up a cigarette and sip some coffee.

I'm sure there are some people who find the restriction quite a turn-on
... maybe those into BDSM and bondage might see a connection there...

*Spike Lee* said:Sure, that isn't the immediate trigger for why I drank myself under the table, but if we're looking for the root cause, every action eventually leads back to the point made in the very first post. 🙂

That’s true, but it’s incomplete.
Saying I drank like a fish to avoid discomfort is accurate, but it lacks depth. Saying I was trying to drown out the memory of my breakup is a much more precise answer.
It’s like my previous example... saying a table is made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen is technically correct, but it's more complete to say it's made of cellulose, and even more specific to say it's made of oak.

Andrew Parker3 said:A simple example is how some guys get turned on when a woman wears a corset or high heels. She finds them uncomfortable—they pinch or feel too tight—but he’s attracted to that sense of restriction. It’s the way she walks in those heels because she isn't quite used to them. That's the gist of it.

It isn't her being restricted that turns him on; it's the visual of her in the outfit.
If she wrapped herself up so tightly that she couldn't move at all, he probably wouldn't be interested...

I think we’re running into an issue of explanatory depth here.
An explanation needs to operate on the same level as the question being asked.
For instance, if I ask what this table is made of, telling me it consists of "carbon and hydrogen" isn't particularly helpful. While technically accurate, it doesn't match the scale of my inquiry.
The same logic applies here. Claiming that human behavior is driven by the principle of pleasure might be true, but it doesn't explain why I decided to drink like a fish yesterday.
A real answer has to descend to my personal level—factors that might apply to me and absolutely no one else, given my specific upbringing and unique circumstances.
That’s why you have certain psychologists who deal with universal truths applicable to everyone, while others—clinicians—focus on individual cases. They use general principles as a guide, but their work is centered on the specific person they are trying to help.

My mother believes this isn't just the logic of intellectuals, but a fundamental drive shared by all living things—animals included, even plants. At its core, a plant turns toward the light and stretches its roots toward the water.
I might be exaggerating slightly, but the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is essentially about survival and the preservation of a species.
With humans, it’s a bit more nuanced due to various psychological variables, but I maintain that we find pleasure in things that align with our identity. This alignment serves to protect our psychological existence and internal integrity.
Of course, for some, this evolutionary mechanism hasn't quite kept pace with modern life. For instance, the massive spike in diabetes cases is a direct result of overconsuming sugar.
The link between sweet foods and pleasure used to be functional because such nutrients were scarce. Today, that connection is no longer an advantage; it's a liability.

What one person finds deeply unsettling, another might find strangely comforting. Conversely, some people find even pure pleasure uncomfortable, often because it triggers a sense of guilt.
One could argue that much of psychology is built upon the principle of pleasure—for instance, instrumental conditioning relies heavily on rewards and punishments as direct consequences of specific actions or inactions.
That premise holds water; we all naturally gravitate toward pleasure (which isn't always physical, but can be psychological) and seek to avoid discomfort. However, that is merely a baseline. What brings me satisfaction may be entirely different from what satisfies you. To truly understand someone and predict their behavior, you have to identify what specifically constitutes "pleasure" for them.
Furthermore, human behavior frequently involves a calculated trade-off between pleasure and pain. We are often willing to endure a certain amount of discomfort if our internal calculus suggests the resulting reward will outweigh the cost.