Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 Controlling ones anger is a skill that one can learn with practice. A good starting point is to disabuse ourselves of some common myths about anger. Myth: Insight into your past decreases anger. Insight into how you developed your errors is not necessarily helpful. Learning and practicing new ways of thinking and behaving are more likely to help you play a better emotional tennis game. Myth: Outside events make you angry. Your beliefs about the things that are happening deteremine your emotional responses. You can easily make yourself aware of the beliefs that lead you to create and keep yourself stuck in anger. Myth: Actively expressing your anger reduces it. A number of studies have concluded that both verbal and physical expressions of anger lead to more, not less, anger. Letting your anger out directly and indirectly tends to reinforce and strengthen it. >Sometimes anger happens. Sometimes rage happens. If anger " just happened " then why does not everyone else have the same reaction (anger) to the same circumstance? Because we determine how we feel thru our beliefs there will be a wide spectrum of reactions to the same event. Some will be irate, some irritated, some indifferent, and some serenity (opps, wrong word). The underlying difference are the core beliefs about the event. If you are dissatisfied with the reaction (anger), try looking at the underlying belief. It can be changed. marcusS anger > I was about 30. After treatment, I felt like I couldn't hold a job or > finish a college class. In what turned out to be my final short-lived > job of that period, I worked in an office with a person I will > describe as a mean and hateful old woman. Others surely would describe > her differently. > > This woman did something that enraged me. I was not aware of my > emotions, but I realized that I could not complete a 7-digit phone > number on our touch-tone phone because my hands were shaking so badly. > I realized I must be angry. Long story short, I walked out on that job > in under a week, and maybe a month later I had landed a job that > worked out as well as I could have hoped. It actually was the first in > a series of jobs I held for 2+ years (including 5 years of > self-employment) and education which resulted in my completing a " 4 > year " degree *21* years after I started it. > > That was a turning point for me. Sometimes anger happens. Sometimes > rage happens. I've never been a physically violent person, but I know > I've used words to hurt others. It will probably happen again, even if > it's not intentional. I feel I could at least have the decency to be > honest about my motives, but I can only be honest about my motives > when I'm aware of my emotions. > > Maybe what I expressed tonight looked like rage. From my perspective, > it felt like annoyance. If you misinterpreted me...well, you're > welcome to dislike me. If we were great friends before then I'd be > sorry to lose your friendship, but at least you know who you're > dealing with and you can protect yourself by avoiding me. > > judith > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2001 Report Share Posted January 10, 2001 > Controlling ones anger is a skill that one can learn with practice. Good luck with that, I don't really want or need to control my anger. ly I'm more able to control my anger when I'm aware of it. If I seriously thought anything I had written here was damaging or harmful, to me or others, I may consider repressing my anger as you describe below. Gee, I've seen threats of physical violence on the internet and that seems to be tolerated. I think part of the answer, in addition to me controlling my emotions, is for you to control your own emotional reaction to my emotions. Anger is normal and, despite the authoritative tone you take below, there is not consensus about the " correct " way to deal with emotions. So I'll do what I think is best. If you have a problem with that, I'm sure you'll express that as you have done here. That's the great thing about communication, we all contribute a different point of view. I have a job, I have a family and friends, and they give me a lot of feedback about how I'm dealing with my life and my emotions. And they know me firsthand, I talk to them frequently and share my ups and downs with them. Their feedback is really more valuable to me than yours. I have no idea who you are, but I know you are motivated by self-interest and not out of any concern for me. That's OK. I also am motivated by self- interest and I take pretty good care of myself, all things considered. judith A good > starting point is to disabuse ourselves of some common myths about anger. > > Myth: Insight into your past decreases anger. > Insight into how you developed your errors is not necessarily helpful. > Learning and practicing new ways of thinking and behaving are more likely to > help you play a better emotional tennis game. > > Myth: Outside events make you angry. > Your beliefs about the things that are happening deteremine your emotional > responses. You can easily make yourself aware of the beliefs that lead you > to create and keep yourself stuck in anger. > > Myth: Actively expressing your anger reduces it. > A number of studies have concluded that both verbal and physical > expressions of anger lead to more, not less, anger. Letting your anger out > directly and indirectly tends to reinforce and strengthen it. > > >Sometimes anger happens. Sometimes rage happens. > > If anger " just happened " then why does not everyone else have the same > reaction (anger) to the same circumstance? Because we determine how we feel > thru our beliefs there will be a wide spectrum of reactions to the same > event. Some will be irate, some irritated, some indifferent, and some > serenity (opps, wrong word). The underlying difference are the core beliefs > about the event. If you are dissatisfied with the reaction (anger), try > looking at the underlying belief. It can be changed. > > > marcusS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2001 Report Share Posted January 10, 2001 > Controlling ones anger is a skill that one can learn with practice. Good luck with that, I don't really want or need to control my anger. ly I'm more able to control my anger when I'm aware of it. If I seriously thought anything I had written here was damaging or harmful, to me or others, I may consider repressing my anger as you describe below. Gee, I've seen threats of physical violence on the internet and that seems to be tolerated. I think part of the answer, in addition to me controlling my emotions, is for you to control your own emotional reaction to my emotions. Anger is normal and, despite the authoritative tone you take below, there is not consensus about the " correct " way to deal with emotions. So I'll do what I think is best. If you have a problem with that, I'm sure you'll express that as you have done here. That's the great thing about communication, we all contribute a different point of view. I have a job, I have a family and friends, and they give me a lot of feedback about how I'm dealing with my life and my emotions. And they know me firsthand, I talk to them frequently and share my ups and downs with them. Their feedback is really more valuable to me than yours. I have no idea who you are, but I know you are motivated by self-interest and not out of any concern for me. That's OK. I also am motivated by self- interest and I take pretty good care of myself, all things considered. judith A good > starting point is to disabuse ourselves of some common myths about anger. > > Myth: Insight into your past decreases anger. > Insight into how you developed your errors is not necessarily helpful. > Learning and practicing new ways of thinking and behaving are more likely to > help you play a better emotional tennis game. > > Myth: Outside events make you angry. > Your beliefs about the things that are happening deteremine your emotional > responses. You can easily make yourself aware of the beliefs that lead you > to create and keep yourself stuck in anger. > > Myth: Actively expressing your anger reduces it. > A number of studies have concluded that both verbal and physical > expressions of anger lead to more, not less, anger. Letting your anger out > directly and indirectly tends to reinforce and strengthen it. > > >Sometimes anger happens. Sometimes rage happens. > > If anger " just happened " then why does not everyone else have the same > reaction (anger) to the same circumstance? Because we determine how we feel > thru our beliefs there will be a wide spectrum of reactions to the same > event. Some will be irate, some irritated, some indifferent, and some > serenity (opps, wrong word). The underlying difference are the core beliefs > about the event. If you are dissatisfied with the reaction (anger), try > looking at the underlying belief. It can be changed. > > > marcusS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2001 Report Share Posted January 10, 2001 > Controlling ones anger is a skill that one can learn with practice. Good luck with that, I don't really want or need to control my anger. ly I'm more able to control my anger when I'm aware of it. If I seriously thought anything I had written here was damaging or harmful, to me or others, I may consider repressing my anger as you describe below. Gee, I've seen threats of physical violence on the internet and that seems to be tolerated. I think part of the answer, in addition to me controlling my emotions, is for you to control your own emotional reaction to my emotions. Anger is normal and, despite the authoritative tone you take below, there is not consensus about the " correct " way to deal with emotions. So I'll do what I think is best. If you have a problem with that, I'm sure you'll express that as you have done here. That's the great thing about communication, we all contribute a different point of view. I have a job, I have a family and friends, and they give me a lot of feedback about how I'm dealing with my life and my emotions. And they know me firsthand, I talk to them frequently and share my ups and downs with them. Their feedback is really more valuable to me than yours. I have no idea who you are, but I know you are motivated by self-interest and not out of any concern for me. That's OK. I also am motivated by self- interest and I take pretty good care of myself, all things considered. judith A good > starting point is to disabuse ourselves of some common myths about anger. > > Myth: Insight into your past decreases anger. > Insight into how you developed your errors is not necessarily helpful. > Learning and practicing new ways of thinking and behaving are more likely to > help you play a better emotional tennis game. > > Myth: Outside events make you angry. > Your beliefs about the things that are happening deteremine your emotional > responses. You can easily make yourself aware of the beliefs that lead you > to create and keep yourself stuck in anger. > > Myth: Actively expressing your anger reduces it. > A number of studies have concluded that both verbal and physical > expressions of anger lead to more, not less, anger. Letting your anger out > directly and indirectly tends to reinforce and strengthen it. > > >Sometimes anger happens. Sometimes rage happens. > > If anger " just happened " then why does not everyone else have the same > reaction (anger) to the same circumstance? Because we determine how we feel > thru our beliefs there will be a wide spectrum of reactions to the same > event. Some will be irate, some irritated, some indifferent, and some > serenity (opps, wrong word). The underlying difference are the core beliefs > about the event. If you are dissatisfied with the reaction (anger), try > looking at the underlying belief. It can be changed. > > > marcusS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2001 Report Share Posted January 10, 2001 , >That second sentence below really bothers me because it implies that you >believe you alone have the answer to controlling ones behavior while angry. The idea that one can control his anger better by searching for the demands he might have about the situation is not new with me, . It has been around for thousands of years, actually. It was the early Stoic philosophers who said that we mainly FEEL the way we THINK. " People are disturbed not by things, but by the views they take of them. " -Epictetus, 1st century AD. What I hoped would come across in that second sentence is that if the material I have shared doesn't ring a bell or seem helpful to you, feel free to ignore it and move on to the next post. I'm sure that I will not agree with every single thing I read here... nor would I want to be in a group where no one ever put forth ideas that might challenge my own beliefs. >ly you make it sound like it's a personal character defect on her part > that she's aware of and has no desire to fix. Where did I say that anyone had a character defect? I don't believe in character defects, only self-helping behaviors and self-defeating behaviors >You haven't yet established that anger is a bad thing Anger, if left unchecked would be self-defeating. It does not move us close to our goals or help us get along with others. Thanks for your response, marcusS My belief is that one can control his emotions by Re: Re: anger > > > > > >Thank you for your warm and friendly welcome to this group. > > > >If you " don't really want or need to control your anger " , then please pass > >on my first post and maybe someone else might find it useful. > > > >marcusS > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2001 Report Share Posted January 10, 2001 , >That second sentence below really bothers me because it implies that you >believe you alone have the answer to controlling ones behavior while angry. The idea that one can control his anger better by searching for the demands he might have about the situation is not new with me, . It has been around for thousands of years, actually. It was the early Stoic philosophers who said that we mainly FEEL the way we THINK. " People are disturbed not by things, but by the views they take of them. " -Epictetus, 1st century AD. What I hoped would come across in that second sentence is that if the material I have shared doesn't ring a bell or seem helpful to you, feel free to ignore it and move on to the next post. I'm sure that I will not agree with every single thing I read here... nor would I want to be in a group where no one ever put forth ideas that might challenge my own beliefs. >ly you make it sound like it's a personal character defect on her part > that she's aware of and has no desire to fix. Where did I say that anyone had a character defect? I don't believe in character defects, only self-helping behaviors and self-defeating behaviors >You haven't yet established that anger is a bad thing Anger, if left unchecked would be self-defeating. It does not move us close to our goals or help us get along with others. Thanks for your response, marcusS My belief is that one can control his emotions by Re: Re: anger > > > > > >Thank you for your warm and friendly welcome to this group. > > > >If you " don't really want or need to control your anger " , then please pass > >on my first post and maybe someone else might find it useful. > > > >marcusS > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2001 Report Share Posted January 10, 2001 , >That second sentence below really bothers me because it implies that you >believe you alone have the answer to controlling ones behavior while angry. The idea that one can control his anger better by searching for the demands he might have about the situation is not new with me, . It has been around for thousands of years, actually. It was the early Stoic philosophers who said that we mainly FEEL the way we THINK. " People are disturbed not by things, but by the views they take of them. " -Epictetus, 1st century AD. What I hoped would come across in that second sentence is that if the material I have shared doesn't ring a bell or seem helpful to you, feel free to ignore it and move on to the next post. I'm sure that I will not agree with every single thing I read here... nor would I want to be in a group where no one ever put forth ideas that might challenge my own beliefs. >ly you make it sound like it's a personal character defect on her part > that she's aware of and has no desire to fix. Where did I say that anyone had a character defect? I don't believe in character defects, only self-helping behaviors and self-defeating behaviors >You haven't yet established that anger is a bad thing Anger, if left unchecked would be self-defeating. It does not move us close to our goals or help us get along with others. Thanks for your response, marcusS My belief is that one can control his emotions by Re: Re: anger > > > > > >Thank you for your warm and friendly welcome to this group. > > > >If you " don't really want or need to control your anger " , then please pass > >on my first post and maybe someone else might find it useful. > > > >marcusS > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2001 Report Share Posted January 10, 2001 > Re: Re: anger >What I hoped would come across in that second sentence is that if the >material I have shared doesn't ring a bell or seem helpful to you, >feel free to ignore it and move on to the next post. I would have had an angry response to that if it were addressed to me. It comes off as condescending. >>ly you make it sound like it's a personal character defect on her part >> that she's aware of and has no desire to fix. >Where did I say that anyone had a character defect? I don't believe in >character defects, only self-helping behaviors and self-defeating behaviors I didn't say you said it I said you made it sound like she had a personal defect. Which is the way it came off when I read it. >Anger, if left unchecked would be self-defeating. It does not move us close >to our goals or help us get along with others. I don't necessarily agree with this view. > >Thanks for your response, >marcusS I close my responses this way when I'm being sarcastic on Usenet. It lends itself to being interpreted that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2001 Report Share Posted January 10, 2001 > Re: Re: anger >What I hoped would come across in that second sentence is that if the >material I have shared doesn't ring a bell or seem helpful to you, >feel free to ignore it and move on to the next post. I would have had an angry response to that if it were addressed to me. It comes off as condescending. >>ly you make it sound like it's a personal character defect on her part >> that she's aware of and has no desire to fix. >Where did I say that anyone had a character defect? I don't believe in >character defects, only self-helping behaviors and self-defeating behaviors I didn't say you said it I said you made it sound like she had a personal defect. Which is the way it came off when I read it. >Anger, if left unchecked would be self-defeating. It does not move us close >to our goals or help us get along with others. I don't necessarily agree with this view. > >Thanks for your response, >marcusS I close my responses this way when I'm being sarcastic on Usenet. It lends itself to being interpreted that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 > >Thanks for your response, > >marcusS > > > I close my responses this way when I'm being sarcastic on Usenet. >It lends itself to being interpreted that way. Whenever I've seen this, it means the person is saying " Shut up and let me have the last word. " . P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 > >Thanks for your response, > >marcusS > > > I close my responses this way when I'm being sarcastic on Usenet. >It lends itself to being interpreted that way. Whenever I've seen this, it means the person is saying " Shut up and let me have the last word. " . P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 > >Thanks for your response, > >marcusS > > > I close my responses this way when I'm being sarcastic on Usenet. >It lends itself to being interpreted that way. Whenever I've seen this, it means the person is saying " Shut up and let me have the last word. " . P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 Re: anger > > > > >Thanks for your response, > > >marcusS > > > > > > I close my responses this way when I'm being sarcastic on Usenet. > >It lends itself to being interpreted that way. > > > Whenever I've seen this, it means the person is saying " Shut up and > let me have the last word. " . > > P. > > I sometimes think the poster must be an android not a human with feelings. Dave Trippel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 > I sometimes think the poster must be an android not a human with feelings. Ok, I'll bite to your neener neener. I used that phrase to decribe your claim to not be able to understand how a support group can hlep someone stop using. Rather than try to shut you up, I let you have the last word on that thread. One thing I will never do is thank you for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2001 Report Share Posted January 13, 2001 Hi All; Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. So which is correct or is it an open question? Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for accounting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2001 Report Share Posted January 13, 2001 Hi All; Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. So which is correct or is it an open question? Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for accounting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2001 Report Share Posted January 13, 2001 Hi All; Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. So which is correct or is it an open question? Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for accounting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 if i am going to hit you on head with a chair, do you have to be taught to raise your arm up to deflect the blow? if you fall, do you have to witness someone use their arms to brace themselves for you to know to do that? is reflex and instinct? why not? its not learned, it serves a purpose. i have yet to hear of population of humans which didnt have the instinct to procreate. to say humans do not have instincts is to say we are somehow not an animal and is a human centric argument which would have been accepted 100 year ago or by catholic church perhaps, but it woefully flawed. for the longest time only humans were thought capable of emotion, thought, language , the ability to use tools or feel pain or learn, murder or engage in warfare (chimps have been shown in wild to do the last 2) that no animal could do any of these, that this is what separated us from animals and made us human. Everyone of these has been shown to be wrong, everyone of these was mearly a rationalization to show were are above other species and to justify our treatment of them . to say we have no instincts, is mearly another rationalization for this, but in reverse. read this link, it goes over what is Heritable Behavior and Abilities. http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt13.html > Hi All; > > Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. > > I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " > > Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do > not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. > > So which is correct or is it an open question? > > Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she > dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for > accounting. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 if i am going to hit you on head with a chair, do you have to be taught to raise your arm up to deflect the blow? if you fall, do you have to witness someone use their arms to brace themselves for you to know to do that? is reflex and instinct? why not? its not learned, it serves a purpose. i have yet to hear of population of humans which didnt have the instinct to procreate. to say humans do not have instincts is to say we are somehow not an animal and is a human centric argument which would have been accepted 100 year ago or by catholic church perhaps, but it woefully flawed. for the longest time only humans were thought capable of emotion, thought, language , the ability to use tools or feel pain or learn, murder or engage in warfare (chimps have been shown in wild to do the last 2) that no animal could do any of these, that this is what separated us from animals and made us human. Everyone of these has been shown to be wrong, everyone of these was mearly a rationalization to show were are above other species and to justify our treatment of them . to say we have no instincts, is mearly another rationalization for this, but in reverse. read this link, it goes over what is Heritable Behavior and Abilities. http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt13.html > Hi All; > > Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. > > I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " > > Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do > not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. > > So which is correct or is it an open question? > > Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she > dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for > accounting. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 if i am going to hit you on head with a chair, do you have to be taught to raise your arm up to deflect the blow? if you fall, do you have to witness someone use their arms to brace themselves for you to know to do that? is reflex and instinct? why not? its not learned, it serves a purpose. i have yet to hear of population of humans which didnt have the instinct to procreate. to say humans do not have instincts is to say we are somehow not an animal and is a human centric argument which would have been accepted 100 year ago or by catholic church perhaps, but it woefully flawed. for the longest time only humans were thought capable of emotion, thought, language , the ability to use tools or feel pain or learn, murder or engage in warfare (chimps have been shown in wild to do the last 2) that no animal could do any of these, that this is what separated us from animals and made us human. Everyone of these has been shown to be wrong, everyone of these was mearly a rationalization to show were are above other species and to justify our treatment of them . to say we have no instincts, is mearly another rationalization for this, but in reverse. read this link, it goes over what is Heritable Behavior and Abilities. http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt13.html > Hi All; > > Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. > > I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " > > Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do > not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. > > So which is correct or is it an open question? > > Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she > dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for > accounting. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 furthermore, physical attraction could be argued to be an instinct, a genetic one to reproduced with the candidate with the best genes. there are qualities we take for being a attractive are remarkably cross cultural. there is a tendency to find people who have facial feature which are more symmetrical attractive, and this tendency is ancient (as witnessed in art) and crosses cultural ,age and gender lines. if you were take your photo, and look at it a mirror you would not look exactly the same, that is because all faces are not perfectly symmetrical. but generally if you were to take a picture of someone who is seen as being extremely attractive (not to say your not;) like a super model, you would find their faces are generally more symmetrical than average. there must be a reason why we consistently thru thru ages find certain facial features to be attractive.if physical attraction is part of a sexual instinct to reproduce witha certain set of genes, that could be it. also im not talking about body types, because that has flip flopped thru the ages, but facial features have not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 furthermore, physical attraction could be argued to be an instinct, a genetic one to reproduced with the candidate with the best genes. there are qualities we take for being a attractive are remarkably cross cultural. there is a tendency to find people who have facial feature which are more symmetrical attractive, and this tendency is ancient (as witnessed in art) and crosses cultural ,age and gender lines. if you were take your photo, and look at it a mirror you would not look exactly the same, that is because all faces are not perfectly symmetrical. but generally if you were to take a picture of someone who is seen as being extremely attractive (not to say your not;) like a super model, you would find their faces are generally more symmetrical than average. there must be a reason why we consistently thru thru ages find certain facial features to be attractive.if physical attraction is part of a sexual instinct to reproduce witha certain set of genes, that could be it. also im not talking about body types, because that has flip flopped thru the ages, but facial features have not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 9:38:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, dmarcoot@... writes: << furthermore, physical attraction could be argued to be an instinct, a genetic one to reproduced with the candidate with the best genes. >> Yes. Remember Money's " love maps " ? ; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 9:38:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, dmarcoot@... writes: << furthermore, physical attraction could be argued to be an instinct, a genetic one to reproduced with the candidate with the best genes. >> Yes. Remember Money's " love maps " ? ; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 9:38:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, dmarcoot@... writes: << furthermore, physical attraction could be argued to be an instinct, a genetic one to reproduced with the candidate with the best genes. >> Yes. Remember Money's " love maps " ? ; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.