What does Self-Transcendence mean?

[INRM]

What does self-transcendence mean?

I'll give you an example...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11324944&dopt=AbstractPlus

Two hundred male subjects (81 college students and 119 subjects from an addiction treatment unit) were administered the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and genotyped at the 48 base pair repeat polymorphism of the DRD4 gene. Subjects were divided by genotype into those carrying any < 4 repeat allele, those homozygous for the 4 repeat allele, and those with any > 4 repeat allele. The total MANCOVA of seven TCI summary scores, with age and diagnostic group as covariates, was significant (P < or = 0.001). The largest effect was with self-transcendence (P < or = 0.001). The total MANCOVA for the three self-transcendence subscores was significant (P < or = 0.017), with the spiritual acceptance subscore showing the most effect (P < or = 0.001, power = 0.91). These results suggest the DRD4 gene may play a role in the personality trait of spiritual acceptance. This may be a function of the high concentration of the dopamine D4 receptor in the cortical areas, especially the frontal cortex.

Also: What does those probablility figures mean? I don't understand them



INRM

[Macoy]

What does self-transcendence mean?

I'll give you an example...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11324944&dopt=AbstractPlus



Also: What does those probablility figures mean? I don't understand them



INRM

Sounds like an attempt at eugenics. It seems to imply that some people are genetically prone to feeling stoned by getting off on spiritual matters. (Whatever they might be.)

[INRM]

Prone to feeling stoned? Huh?

INRM

[Jeff Corey]

Or prone from being stoned.

[INRM]

So there's a gene that makes some people prone to believing in an afterlife and spiritual things? And others not prone from such things?

(Am I reading it right)

INRM

[Macoy]

So there's a gene that makes some people prone to believing in an afterlife and spiritual things? And others not prone from such things?

(Am I reading it right)

INRM

They seem to claim that some get a greater dopamine hit off of "spiritual experiences", or "flashes", than those less genetically prone.

[Macoy]

So a vulnerable person could be "flashed" by something like an auditing machine or jesus in a pancake, and the hit is so good, they are instantly addicted.

[INRM]

So those who are not genetically prone do not get as big a hit, and thus are less effected, and less addicted to such experiences? Correct?

But are those who are not genetically prone still succeptable to such things (even in a lower capacity)

[blobru]

What does self-transcendence mean?

Literally, "going beyond oneself"; "changing one's personality / behavior", I'm guessing, in the context of this study (they're testing addicts).

Also: What does those probablility figures mean? I don't understand them

The P-value is the probability the observed differences -- between those with the gene and those without -- could be due to chance.

So there's a gene that makes some people prone to believing in an afterlife and spiritual things? And others not prone from such things?
(Am I reading it right)

I think so.

[Macoy]

Reckon. So any state could use this info to test us at airports and railway stations for "scepticabilty". The innocent have nothing to fear.

[INRM]

Macoy/Others,

Are those who are not prone still succeptable to a smaller degree, or not at all?


blobru,

Wouldn't this be pretty much conclusive proof that since genetics affects one's desire for an afterlife and spirituality and that the desire is in one's head prove that there is no afterlife?

It sounds pretty direct to me... unless I'm reading it wrong -- I don't think so.

INRM

[Macoy]

Macoy/Others,

Are those who are not prone still succeptable to a smaller degree, or not at all?

INRM

I would say that there is probably a broad spectrum of responses.

[INRM]

I'm wondering here about something...

If it wasn't for this gene, people wouldn't have even thought of their being some kind of afterlife? Or does this gene simply make people more readily believe it, and become addicted to the idea?

INRM

[INRM]

Also, what's a MANCOVA? I have never heard that term in my life

INRM

[INRM]

I know someone who might be an example of what a person without the high-dopamine DRD4 gene...

Age 51: Was raised religious, went to church (part of the parochial school she went to), dad was not religious (Raised religious, molested by priest, became hateful of religion), mom was. Never understood spirituality, or at least never got what anybody else got out of it. Same view about religion.

It sounds like she (Linda A.) fits the profile fairly well.

Since the gene also plays a role in the way the kidneys process sodium, I'm not sure if she has any renal problems -- father did though (but he was an alcoholic and died of renal failure)


Think I'm right here?

[blobru]

...Wouldn't this be pretty much conclusive proof that since genetics affects one's desire for an afterlife and spirituality and that the desire is in one's head prove that there is no afterlife?

It sounds pretty direct to me... unless I'm reading it wrong -- I don't think so.


Now that you mention it, it sure doesn't make a whole lot of sense for God, at least a God who wants to be believed in, to give some people only a genetic predisposition for this kind of endeavor and not everyone.

I suspect the theist would answer -- 'cause there's always an answer -- that that's the nature of faith: those without the predisposition just have to work harder to earn it but appreciate more when they get it, God seeing fit to challenge each of us differently in His infinite wisdom and mercy, and so on and so forth.

The afterlife of course is going to either be there or not independent of anyone's desire for it, but what sort of afterlife would depend on one's "spirituality" in this life; so again, the question: why would God give some people an inside track on a better afterlife? Seems pretty unfair. And the pretty clear answer seems: no God (or a God who doesn't care).

[Macoy]

Also, what's a MANCOVA? I have never heard that term in my life

INRM

MANOVA ="Multivariate analysis of variance"

MANCOVA is an extension of ANCOVA. It is simply a MANOVA where the artificial DVs are initially adjusted for differences in one or more covariates. This can reduce error "noise" when error associated with the covariate is removed.http://online.sfsu.edu/~efc/classes/biol710/manova/manova.htm (http://online.sfsu.edu/%7Eefc/classes/biol710/manova/manova.htm)

What you do is, juggle your variables till you get the answer you want.

[INRM]

blobru,

I'm just suggesting since the belief in an afterlife seems to be the result of genes which make people prone to thoughts of it. Wouldn't that mean that if it weren't for the gene, people wouldn't have thought of it?

INRM

[bruto]

blobru,

I'm just suggesting since the belief in an afterlife seems to be the result of genes which make people prone to thoughts of it. Wouldn't that mean that if it weren't for the gene, people wouldn't have thought of it?

INRM

But is it the thinking of it, or the emotional and physiological response to the thought that is at issue here? It's not, after all, such a bizarre thing to imagine or to wonder about, or even to wish for. People think about a lot of things. But perhaps those less susceptible to the physiological response would also be less likely to accept the illogic of faith, and since the idea carries no physiological reward, either drop it or, even if convinced for some other reason that it's a good idea, simply not invest much energy in contemplating it. One might, after all, be like so many people who don't bother to question the prevailing beliefs of their elders and peers, but, getting no dopamine hit from them, say "yeah, whatever," and go on about their business neither wiser nor more blissful than before.

[Complexity]

Whatever you want it to mean.

[Macoy]

An afterlife has always been a little problematic for me. I can't think of one that hasn't got a catch or two.

[INRM]

bruto,

You might be right, but keep in mind, they're not 100% sure why the DRD4 gene causes it's effects. They likely assume it's due to dopamine levels, but there could be something that is not known yet.

Could be wrong though.


Macoy,

I was thinking, wouldn't these findings kind of answer the problem once and for all? (I'm not saying being able to live for ever wouldn't *TOTALLY* rock, but I'm pretty much totally certain it's not in the cards)

INRM

[INRM]

Was I wrong about scientists not being 100% sure about what the DRD4 gene does?

INRM

[Macoy]

Macoy,

I was thinking, wouldn't these findings kind of answer the problem once and for all? (I'm not saying being able to live for ever wouldn't *TOTALLY* rock, but I'm pretty much totally certain it's not in the cards)

INRM

I'm not convinced that they have necessarily discovered a "spiritualism" gene.
It could be just a "susceptibility to brainwashing" gene.

[INRM]

Hmm, Maybe you're right Macoy, not sure though.

Anyone else have their opinions?

[INRM]

Nobody?

[Macoy]

As an agnostic, I have to say that I don't know of an afterlife that makes sense. This "research" seems more like an attempt to analyse various indoctrination techniques they have chosen to mask with "spiritualim".

[drzeus99]

People have always (and will always) believe in an afterlife.

If a gene was responsible, and it was "turned off", people would still have thought
of an afterlife.

Remember, religion (in general) was created thousands of years ago for a variety of reasons. The major ones being:
1. Explaining the unexplainable
2. Controlling the masses. People were very barbaric back in the day. By trying to get
someone to get their act together, a story was made up about how ones life on
earth will affect them after they die. Be a scumbag on earth and you can count on
sufferring torment for infinity in an afterlife. Be a good boy/girl and your afterlife will
be filled with goodies.

Simple as that. That's how the human mind works. Humans by nature are gullible, naive,
and have the mentality of sheep. They are easy to lead (and lead on). It's not hard to convince someone of something if you sound like you know what your talking about.

But it's the ones who "might" be predisposed to more easily fall into the religious stranglehold that "might" be more apt to experience these religious thoughts (which they've been raised on from early childhood). But being predisposed to something doesn't mean one WILL do something (and vice-verse). It just means you have a better chance than other around you.

Cheers,
DrZ

[INRM]

DrZeus

You mean even if the gene was off people would have still believed in it? Or if they believed in it then and it was switched off now, people would still believe?

[INRM]

Nobody?

[bruto]

DrZeus

You mean even if the gene was off people would have still believed in it? Or if they believed in it then and it was switched off now, people would still believe?I would guess both. The gene may help, but there are other reasons for believing, and plenty of other reasons for people to cling to beliefs against good arguments and good judgment.

[INRM]

I wonder though that if that gene was never there, that the belief in an afterlife would have faded out a lot faster... I think it's kind of the "warm fuzzy" feelings that keep people sticking to it. If people didn't have as much dopamine in the cortex wouldn't they not feel those warm fuzzy feelings to the same extent?

The fuzzy feelings could equate to a state of being stoned right? Well if the stoned feeling wasn't there wouldn't people have given up the belief in it?

Or is there more to it than even that

INRM

[INRM]

Am I right or wrong?

INRM

[INRM]

Nobody?

[bruto]

I wonder though that if that gene was never there, that the belief in an afterlife would have faded out a lot faster... I think it's kind of the "warm fuzzy" feelings that keep people sticking to it. If people didn't have as much dopamine in the cortex wouldn't they not feel those warm fuzzy feelings to the same extent?

The fuzzy feelings could equate to a state of being stoned right? Well if the stoned feeling wasn't there wouldn't people have given up the belief in it?

Or is there more to it than even that

INRMI think it's anybody's guess, but I'm guessing that it would still be around, because there's more to the appeal of an afterlife, etc. than the dopamine high. People believe a lot of things because they seem plausible, comforting, useful or simple. While I can see how the genetic idea might make mysticism more appealing, I think most people who believe in things like heaven and hell and reincarnation are not mystics. They're just people who find it easier to believe these things than to struggle with the alternatives. But ultimately, I think it's anybody's guess. I'd like to see more evidence of how those who lack the gene behave and believe.

[INRM]

But isn't the appeal of the afterlife the result of the warm fuzzy feelings caused by high dopamine in the cortex? Sure nobody wants to die, but without those warm-fuzzy feelings and the addicting effects would keep religious belief going where it would not lasted as long or faded completely away awhile earler under scrutiny (which if a person is feeling warm fuzzy feelings are not as likely to scrutinize -- after all if it was proven wrong it would be a HUGE buzzkill)

That make sense, or am I still wrong

INRM

[INRM]

Nobody?

[INRM]

I'm amazed nobody has anything to say

INRM

[Macoy]

But isn't the appeal of the afterlife the result of the warm fuzzy feelings caused by high dopamine in the cortex? Sure nobody wants to die, but without those warm-fuzzy feelings and the addicting effects would keep religious belief going where it would not lasted as long or faded completely away awhile earler under scrutiny (which if a person is feeling warm fuzzy feelings are not as likely to scrutinize -- after all if it was proven wrong it would be a HUGE buzzkill)

That make sense, or am I still wrong

INRM

One could say that the appeal of an afterlife could also be the result of a fear reaction to the contemplation of its absence. Hitting any dopamine buttons would just be a bonus.

ETA: So one could say that the "susceptibility gene" is just evolution.

[Macoy]

Double post.

[bruto]

I'm amazed nobody has anything to say

INRM

I have something to say, but it seems not to be enough.

I think you may underestimate the intellectual and emotional appeal of faith. Not all faith requires a mystical experience. You can believe something simply because it's more believable, or more convenient than the alternatives, or simply because someone has convinced you.

[karmicserenade]

But isn't the appeal of the afterlife the result of the warm fuzzy feelings caused by high dopamine in the cortex? Sure nobody wants to die, but without those warm-fuzzy feelings and the addicting effects would keep religious belief going where it would not lasted as long or faded completely away awhile earler under scrutiny (which if a person is feeling warm fuzzy feelings are not as likely to scrutinize -- after all if it was proven wrong it would be a HUGE buzzkill)

That make sense, or am I still wrong

INRM

I get high just thinking about Jesus..haha..just kidding, seriously I am a spiritual person, and it is an alluring thing for me, because it is mysterious, and you can't quite put your finger on it...it is not something that can be dissected or proven, and that is why I love it so...now go ahead and laugh, all of you. :P

[INRM]

Macoy

Until proven otherwise, I'd have to say you're probably right

[INRM]

I was just thinking of something.

Do people who do not have the gene that produces this religious bent not fear death as much as those with the "religious bent"?

It sounds strange but I'm curious...


INRM

[INRM]

I'm suprized. I thought that was a good question.

INRM

[bruto]

I'm suprized. I thought that was a good question.

INRMIt probably is a good question, but I don't think anyone has a good answer. No data.

[INRM]

Too bad huh?

Well if anybody does have an answer, I'd love to hear it

INRM