Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewc

"blah blah blah its all a chemical reaction blah blah blah"

You say you wanna stay the night
But you'll leave me tomorrow, I don't care
All of your moves are right

Physical attraction! It's a chemical reaction! OOoooooooh yeah.

Trying hard to get away
But I can't seem to fight the way I feel
Even though you're not for real

Physical attraction! It's a chemical reaction! OOoooooooh yeah.

Same Same Media Player

YouTube

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Ok I'm not going to have time for this, here's what I've got. I hope it makes sense.



Wow, this is really impressive! It takes all of my mental energy and willpower just to get myself to go out for a run every so often (read: never ). I know I can't have everything, but I'm still jealous!



I know nobody cares anymore, but f*** you all

I only know what I was taught about oxytocin and cortisol a few years ago at uni, but I'm fairly sure (unless something new has been discovered) that oxytocin is important for pair bonding which is different to emotional bonding. Emotions are the phenomenological experience that we have, and there is certainly brain activity underlying them, but pair bonding is a step simpler than that and it is more of a behavioural event than an emotional one.

This is a great dichotomy in a physiological sense, but can we assume that emotions are ultimately reduceable to hormones? Certainly hormones affect our mood and emotions but you couldn't go so far as to say that they are the emotion in and of itself.

At a fundamental level emotions are relations - simply put, emotions take an independent, mutually exclusive object. This is to say - you are afraid of something, or you love someone. It is undoubted that both sides of the relation are necessary in order for it to successfully exist, I.e. you cannot simply love, you have to love something or someone. At best we can say that one particular hormone places the individual in a mental state allowing them to experience love (or fear) in relation to that which they love (or fear). Just to make sure this is completely clear - it is logically impossible to reduce love (or fear) to the presence or absence of a hormone in the blood. The hormone might cause the emotion, or be necessary or sufficient for the emotion (or both), or simply play a part in the experiencing of the emotion but it cannot be the emotion. I'm taking the time to clarify this because the authors of this article you quoted appear to be a little bit confused on this point. So now that this is clear, where does that leave us?

One can only assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that perception of the object either leads the hormone to be released which gives rise to the emotion or leads to the experience of the emotion which causes the hormone to be released, or the two events simply occur concurrently due to some other causes (note this includes the possibility that the two events are unrelated). Only the first two of these possibilities is really in agreement with your argument as I understand it (which is that the oxytocin cortisol dichotomy proves that fear and love are equally basic emotions). Furthermore, I think a necessary auxiliary premise (if your argument on the basis of hormones is to be valid) is that cortisol is independent of love and oxytocin independent of fear. Perhaps this is what was meant, so let's take it from there.

For simplicity's sake, I'll focus on oxytocin and love, but everything obviously still applies to cortisol and fear. One question that needs to be asked is how well do these events correlate - namely the presence of oxytocin and the feeling of love? Does every single instance of experiencing love automatically involve the presence of oxytocin? Does every release of oxytocin coincide with the feeling of love? Taking into account our auxiliary premise, are these events mutually exclusive of cortisol (and therefore by extension, fear)? The answer to this, we already know, is no. There is, however, a high correlation between the two events.
Take labour as an example. The brain is flooded with oxytocin, both for its pain and stress reducing effects, and for its pair bonding effects. In nature it is vital that the mother bonds with her child as quickly as possible, especially given that the child is completely dependent on her. One thing is certain (and I'm not just going off what mothers have told me when I asked them about their experience with labour), the mother is not overwhelmed with 'love' during labour. It's a more physiological effect that the oxytocin has than an emotional one. More importantly, this system isn't perfect - unfortunately, some mothers reject their offspring after a 'natural' birth - it is obviously not a lack of oxytocin which causes this. The emotion which develops between a mother and child begins long before the child is born (for some people before it is even conceived) and grows with time. Looking at the flip side of this, some events which involve intense love result in exactly the kind of cortisol infused physiological reaction that should be relegated to the emotion of fear. Surely, though, sometimes love can be exciting and exhilarating?! Surely that isn't unhealthy in moderate doses? In the article, it quotes 'meditation, yoga, exercise, [and] massage' as behaviours which lead to the release of oxytocin - but none of these necessarily have anything to do with the emotion of love. The authors of this article recognise this and (implicitly) distinguish between what I'm going to call 'good' love and 'bad' love. What they are essentially doing is forcing their point that oxytocin = love even as they sight evidence that it doesn't! In fact what they are doing is providing a circular argument in which they assume the very point they are (implicitly) trying to prove. Certainly they are assuming the point which you are trying to prove, rather than providing evidence for it.

Next, we need to check the temporal order of events, otherwise we fall into the trap of calling a consequent event the 'cause of', or at least 'necessary for' the antecedent event. In other words, if oxytocin is released, or (to exhaust all logical possibilities) absent until, after the person has already had the phenomenological experience of love then it can neither be the direct cause of love, nor necessary for the person to experience love. Indeed the article itself suggests that the hormone is released in response to the behaviour (which is not the emotion of course) and that this release then encourages the behaviour, and so on cyclically forever building on itself. Again this hormone is not the same as the emotion.

Let's now bring this back to the topic of the thread. Here we have two hormones with essentially opposing physiological effects. What this article does tell us is that the effect of oxytocin is more favourable to our long term health than the effect of cortisol. What it doesn't tell us, despite attempting to quite admirably, is that the effects of the hormones are specific to particular emotions or that the effects of the emotions are specific to particular hormones. Certainly finding a way to love someone with a range of behaviours that are less cortisol based and more oxytocin based would be healthier - but we already knew that! Science (and I apologise for the blatant reification) has begun to help us uncover how this happens. What it hasn't done is provided evidence that love exists independently of fear - which is the point I assume you were questioning when you quoted this article.

Oh Fahed, We have very short attention spans ( well I do) and you seem to use very big words which hurt my head.AND you big girlie swatty university nerd . Bless

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointzer

You say you wanna stay the night
But you'll leave me tomorrow, I don't care
All of your moves are right

Physical attraction! It's a chemical reaction! OOoooooooh yeah.

Trying hard to get away
But I can't seem to fight the way I feel
Even though you're not for real

Physical attraction! It's a chemical reaction! OOoooooooh yeah.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKjm-zdcPHM

OMG, I do love the classiques . Bravo

I'm impressed by the many budding anthropologists here and how swiftly the conversation can switch from barely a notch above fart jokes to contemplation of hegemonic masculinity .

Agree with kngo6803+ that we often internalise many of the values of masculinity from broader society and may even (literally) build on some of them. This is why (for example) many gay Asian men living in essentially Caucasian societies (such as Australia) find themselves internalising a form of bias towards a western male aesthetic & moving away from the typically softer Asian male aesthetic to the extent that they are never attracted to other Asian men.

The hormonal basis of love, often written up in the popular press as 'the chemistry of love' or 'the science of love' is a fascinating subject in itself. However it is still very much a developing field and scientists are kidding themselves (as well as us) if they imply that they have it all figured out.

In answer to Fahed's comment "I'm fairly sure ...that oxytocin is important for pair bonding which is different to emotional bonding" there is some compelling evidence http://data.psych.udel.edu/rsimons/P...0al%202008.pdf that the anti-stress model of Oxytocin plays a role in bonding-relating cognitions across our life span i.e. a role in all close human affiliations, not only pair bonding, albeit its effect is probably most pronounced in pairs.

What is particularly interesting is that if we miss out on experiencing the effects of Oxytocin as an infant (e.g. through early separation from our mothers or abuse) then we may also not respond to Oxytocin at all as a cue for bonding later in our adult lives.

There is also an interesting BBC online article on the topic (albeit a few years out of date) titled 'Is love just a chemical cocktail?' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7815095.stm

A few interesting comments from the researchers interviewed for this article include:

"We shouldn't think that this perspective on its own provides a full understanding of what love is ... I'm sure that we are just beginning to tap the surface ... there are hundreds of signalling molecules in the brain - they all act in different brain areas."

"There are also evolutionary, psychological, sociological ... and humanistic perspectives that offer important insights."

"Nurture has an important part to play ... but the way nurture works is through changing neurochemistry."

Finally I want share an encouraging article "Love, Sex and The Science Of Love" http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm which describes the 3 stages of love, offering an role for many hormones in each stage of love including a predominant role for Oxytocin which they refer to sweetly as 'The Cuddle Hormone' in Stage 3 ("Attachment").

But the real gem here is the 3-step formula - again based on the body of developing research in this field - that the authors share for "How To Fall in Love":

1) Find a complete stranger.

2) Reveal to each other intimate details about your lives for half an hour.

3) Then, stare deeply into each other’s eyes without talking for four minutes.

Perhaps not quite as simple or reliable as Oberon's love potion from 'A Midsummer Nights Dream "the juice of it on sleeping eyelids laid will make or man or woman madly dote upon the next live creature that it sees" - which some of you might recall was given a clever gay twist in the 2008 movie 'Were the World Mine' - but definitely somewhere to start when we are next looking longingly at the handsome stranger across the bar at 'The Shift' or 'The Imperial' wondering "Could he be mine?"

I think its time for of a botty joke kids, dont you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewc

"blah blah blah its all a chemical reaction blah blah blah"

This sums everything up perfectly: nobody read what I wrote. Eh, I wasn't expecting anyone to, so it's ok .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

...nobody read what I wrote.

Not true. I quoted - and responded directly to - what you wrote Fahed

Stop writing essays. Actually even in Uni these days they dont want you to write too much as you will get marked down. I am not allowed to write more than 15oo words in my course cause anything beyond that will be utter bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

This sums everything up perfectly: nobody read what I wrote. Eh, I wasn't expecting anyone to, so it's ok .

It begs the question why did you bother? Never overestimate your audience fahed.

Anyone for a botty joke??

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazzboy

Actually even in Uni these days they dont want you to write too much as you will get marked down. I am not allowed to write more than 15oo words in my course cause anything beyond that will be utter bullshit.

LOL. Are you certain that is the case Shazzboy or are they catering to their mostly GenY+i student population who struggle with anything longer than a Facebook post before it turns to bullshit ??

Quote:

I am just naturally skinny, Idk why, I eat good foods and alot of bad foods, I never seem to be obsessed with being picture perfect, but would love to stay in shape so I can run or walk somwhere and not get puffed out

Well if you walk somewhere and get puffed and you're skinny then something is wrong. You need to start serious and consistent exercise; forget weights for the time being, they have their place but for health cardiovascular exercise is best, and the best of all of those is running.
From my odd forays in the gym in the past most people do a few lifts and then wander around and look at the posters on the wall or themselves in the mirror and then do a few more lifts. This does NOTHING for your heart or lungs, which is the most important.
To the guy above who can lift 170 kg, I couldn't do that and I'm damn impressed, but I bet I could beat you on a 3k run.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iammyexperiment

LOL. Are you certain that is the case Shazzboy or are they catering to their mostly GenY+i student population who struggle with anything longer than a Facebook post before it turns to bullshit ??

At postgraduate level they get really pissed off with you if you go above the word limit. I know, I have agressive emails from my Lecturers scolding me for it.

I bet I could beat you^ (Simoneybabe) on a 3km run

I've been on a diet since I was thirteen. I can't lift weights and I run out of breath walking up a flight of stairs but I can fuck like a rabbit... for hours... and hours. Am I happy? I'm not not happy but I would much rather be able to run a marathon or lift 170kg... NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by iammyexperiment

LOL. Are you certain that is the case Shazzboy or are they catering to their mostly GenY+i student population who struggle with anything longer than a Facebook post before it turns to bullshit ??

Not the case - least not in business. If I can't condense what I want to do/sell/change in a paragraph or two in a cover letter, no one is going to read the 10 page detailed document that goes with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleb

Dougster unless you're going like Phar Lap on Melbourne Cup Day weight loss & sex is more of a myth especially for all the starfish out there!!

hahahahah. kaleb, man. i go (as my dad would say) like the clappers. and this boi aint with no starfish either

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simoneybabe

You need to start serious and consistent exercise; forget weights for the time being, they have their place but for health cardiovascular exercise is best, and the best of all of those is running.

What he said. A useful rule of thumb is to look at the programs that guys with good overall physiques are following. Most will include a substantial chunk of cardio which both builds endurance and burns calories (if you need it to) & the best overall cardio exercise is running.

At the moment i'm on 3 weights and 1-2 cardio sessions per week. I still consider myself fat (not obese though), despite losing a significant amount of weight.

It all goes south in middle-age? Old men put-it-on around their middle, ladies around their thighs.
Im too old to exercise everyday like I used too and Im too old to chase men and getting too old to care..
Mind you I did have a power-walk and a bit of run yesterday...but any more and it takes too much out of the old dear....
Love is such and such - one of those chestnuts which we approach understanding about

Quote:

Originally Posted by iammyexperiment

What he said. A useful rule of thumb is to look at the programs that guys with good overall physiques are following. Most will include a substantial chunk of cardio which both builds endurance and burns calories (if you need it to) & the best overall cardio exercise is running.

I thought swimming was the absolute best combo for cardio and muscle building? Running is good, but surely swimming is a more efficient option?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Ok I'm not going to have time for this, here's what I've got. I hope it makes sense.



Wow, this is really impressive! It takes all of my mental energy and willpower just to get myself to go out for a run every so often (read: never ). I know I can't have everything, but I'm still jealous!



I know nobody cares anymore, but f*** you all

I only know what I was taught about oxytocin and cortisol a few years ago at uni, but I'm fairly sure (unless something new has been discovered) that oxytocin is important for pair bonding which is different to emotional bonding. Emotions are the phenomenological experience that we have, and there is certainly brain activity underlying them, but pair bonding is a step simpler than that and it is more of a behavioural event than an emotional one.

This is a great dichotomy in a physiological sense, but can we assume that emotions are ultimately reduceable to hormones? Certainly hormones affect our mood and emotions but you couldn't go so far as to say that they are the emotion in and of itself.

At a fundamental level emotions are relations - simply put, emotions take an independent, mutually exclusive object. This is to say - you are afraid of something, or you love someone. It is undoubted that both sides of the relation are necessary in order for it to successfully exist, I.e. you cannot simply love, you have to love something or someone. At best we can say that one particular hormone places the individual in a mental state allowing them to experience love (or fear) in relation to that which they love (or fear). Just to make sure this is completely clear - it is logically impossible to reduce love (or fear) to the presence or absence of a hormone in the blood. The hormone might cause the emotion, or be necessary or sufficient for the emotion (or both), or simply play a part in the experiencing of the emotion but it cannot be the emotion. I'm taking the time to clarify this because the authors of this article you quoted appear to be a little bit confused on this point. So now that this is clear, where does that leave us?

One can only assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that perception of the object either leads the hormone to be released which gives rise to the emotion or leads to the experience of the emotion which causes the hormone to be released, or the two events simply occur concurrently due to some other causes (note this includes the possibility that the two events are unrelated). Only the first two of these possibilities is really in agreement with your argument as I understand it (which is that the oxytocin cortisol dichotomy proves that fear and love are equally basic emotions). Furthermore, I think a necessary auxiliary premise (if your argument on the basis of hormones is to be valid) is that cortisol is independent of love and oxytocin independent of fear. Perhaps this is what was meant, so let's take it from there.

For simplicity's sake, I'll focus on oxytocin and love, but everything obviously still applies to cortisol and fear. One question that needs to be asked is how well do these events correlate - namely the presence of oxytocin and the feeling of love? Does every single instance of experiencing love automatically involve the presence of oxytocin? Does every release of oxytocin coincide with the feeling of love? Taking into account our auxiliary premise, are these events mutually exclusive of cortisol (and therefore by extension, fear)? The answer to this, we already know, is no. There is, however, a high correlation between the two events.
Take labour as an example. The brain is flooded with oxytocin, both for its pain and stress reducing effects, and for its pair bonding effects. In nature it is vital that the mother bonds with her child as quickly as possible, especially given that the child is completely dependent on her. One thing is certain (and I'm not just going off what mothers have told me when I asked them about their experience with labour), the mother is not overwhelmed with 'love' during labour. It's a more physiological effect that the oxytocin has than an emotional one. More importantly, this system isn't perfect - unfortunately, some mothers reject their offspring after a 'natural' birth - it is obviously not a lack of oxytocin which causes this. The emotion which develops between a mother and child begins long before the child is born (for some people before it is even conceived) and grows with time. Looking at the flip side of this, some events which involve intense love result in exactly the kind of cortisol infused physiological reaction that should be relegated to the emotion of fear. Surely, though, sometimes love can be exciting and exhilarating?! Surely that isn't unhealthy in moderate doses? In the article, it quotes 'meditation, yoga, exercise, [and] massage' as behaviours which lead to the release of oxytocin - but none of these necessarily have anything to do with the emotion of love. The authors of this article recognise this and (implicitly) distinguish between what I'm going to call 'good' love and 'bad' love. What they are essentially doing is forcing their point that oxytocin = love even as they sight evidence that it doesn't! In fact what they are doing is providing a circular argument in which they assume the very point they are (implicitly) trying to prove. Certainly they are assuming the point which you are trying to prove, rather than providing evidence for it.

Next, we need to check the temporal order of events, otherwise we fall into the trap of calling a consequent event the 'cause of', or at least 'necessary for' the antecedent event. In other words, if oxytocin is released, or (to exhaust all logical possibilities) absent until, after the person has already had the phenomenological experience of love then it can neither be the direct cause of love, nor necessary for the person to experience love. Indeed the article itself suggests that the hormone is released in response to the behaviour (which is not the emotion of course) and that this release then encourages the behaviour, and so on cyclically forever building on itself. Again this hormone is not the same as the emotion.

Let's now bring this back to the topic of the thread. Here we have two hormones with essentially opposing physiological effects. What this article does tell us is that the effect of oxytocin is more favourable to our long term health than the effect of cortisol. What it doesn't tell us, despite attempting to quite admirably, is that the effects of the hormones are specific to particular emotions or that the effects of the emotions are specific to particular hormones. Certainly finding a way to love someone with a range of behaviours that are less cortisol based and more oxytocin based would be healthier - but we already knew that! Science (and I apologise for the blatant reification) has begun to help us uncover how this happens. What it hasn't done is provided evidence that love exists independently of fear - which is the point I assume you were questioning when you quoted this article.

You assume too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Correz

1) Find a complete stranger.

2) Reveal to each other intimate details about your lives for half an hour.

3) Then, stare deeply into each other’s eyes without talking for four minutes.

It also helps if you do all of this in a dimly lit environment so your pupils are all dilated, which would be interpreted as sexual arousal. The other person will find you more attractive if they think that you're attracted to them, and vice versa.

3-4 medium weights sessions a week

usually 2 good walks a week as well

no carbs on days I am not going to the gym

that way I still shovel as much as I like and I mean shovel.

Running can be high impact on your body whereas swimming isnt as harsh and keeping your body straight while swimming is great for abs.

Never run down hill

Quote:

Originally Posted by kngo6803

It also helps if you do all of this in a dimly lit environment so your pupils are all dilated, which would be interpreted as sexual arousal. The other person will find you more attractive if they think that you're attracted to them, and vice versa.

KNGO plagiarising Allan Pease's Body language book why didn't I think of it first! They say prostitutes used belladonna eye drops to dilate their pupils & appear more seductive to men & of course the dimly lit environment covers a multitude of flaws

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleb

KNGO plagiarising Allan Pease's Body language book why didn't I think of it first! They say prostitutes used belladonna eye drops to dilate their pupils & appear more seductive to men & of course the dimly lit environment covers a multitude of flaws

Actually plagiarised off my lecturer who probably plagiarised it Pease

The same lecturer of mine who told us that long distance relationships don't work, while she was actually having an 11 year LDR before they finally got engaged... Probably a good thing that she didn't practice what she preached.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papilio

It begs the question why did you bother? Never overestimate your audience fahed.

Anyone for a botty joke??

You should never beg a question. They're the grim reapers of the language world. That's why they all carry a scythe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Mahera

You assume too much.

Smooth

2 general points:
1. Some things can't be stated briefly because they are rather complex
2. Sometimes people write for their own sake, not for their audience. The thread had moved on by the time I posted a response but I'd already done much of the thinking (and basically all of the writing) so I posted it anyway. I didn't put an expletive in me post for no reason.

Also, Phazz, you are not fat. I know, I've undressed you with my eyes .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Sometimes people write for their own sake, not for their audience

i actually liked what u said so it werent just for ur sake

from a wider perspective iv actually been trying to consider th impact (if any) of epigenetics and transgenerational influences (eg trauma) that affect th genome thru successive generations and what that then means (if at all) for hormone production and mood effect

anyways - im still trying to get my head around what im thinking

so it was worthwhile for me

cheers F

OMG fair enough I spoz....

Quote:

Originally Posted by badamj2000

OMG fair enough I spoz....

You must be an elite member...

No one else could get away with such crap posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Correz

I'm impressed by the many budding anthropologists here and how swiftly the conversation can switch from barely a notch above fart jokes to contemplation of hegemonic masculinity.

Agree with kngo6803+ that we often internalise many of the values of masculinity from broader society and may even (literally) build on some of them. This is why (for example) many gay Asian men living in essentially Caucasian societies (such as Australia) find themselves internalising a form of bias towards a western male aesthetic & moving away from the typically softer Asian male aesthetic to the extent that they are never attracted to other Asian men.

The hormonal basis of love, often written up in the popular press as 'the chemistry of love' or 'the science of love' is a fascinating subject in itself. However it is still very much a developing field and scientists are kidding themselves (as well as us) if they imply that they have it all figured out.

In answer to Fahed's comment "I'm fairly sure ...that oxytocin is important for pair bonding which is different to emotional bonding" there is some compelling evidence http://data.psych.udel.edu/rsimons/P...0al%202008.pdf that the anti-stress model of Oxytocin plays a role in bonding-relating cognitions across our life span i.e. a role in all close human affiliations, not only pair bonding, albeit its effect is probably most pronounced in pairs.

What is particularly interesting is that if we miss out on experiencing the effects of Oxytocin as an infant (e.g. through early separation from our mothers or abuse) then we may also not respond to Oxytocin at all as a cue for bonding later in our adult lives.

There is also an interesting BBC online article on the topic (albeit a few years out of date) titled 'Is love just a chemical cocktail?' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7815095.stm

A few interesting comments from the researchers interviewed for this article include:

"We shouldn't think that this perspective on its own provides a full understanding of what love is ... I'm sure that we are just beginning to tap the surface ... there are hundreds of signalling molecules in the brain - they all act in different brain areas."

"There are also evolutionary, psychological, sociological ... and humanistic perspectives that offer important insights."

"Nurture has an important part to play ... but the way nurture works is through changing neurochemistry."

Finally I want share an encouraging article "Love, Sex and The Science Of Love" http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm which describes the 3 stages of love, offering an role for many hormones in each stage of love including a predominant role for Oxytocin which they refer to sweetly as 'The Cuddle Hormone' in Stage 3 ("Attachment").

But the real gem here is the 3-step formula - again based on the body of developing research in this field - that the authors share for "How To Fall in Love":

1) Find a complete stranger.

2) Reveal to each other intimate details about your lives for half an hour.

3) Then, stare deeply into each other’s eyes without talking for four minutes.

Perhaps not quite as simple or reliable as Oberon's love potion from 'A Midsummer Nights Dream "the juice of it on sleeping eyelids laid will make or man or woman madly dote upon the next live creature that it sees" - which some of you might recall was given a clever gay twist in the 2008 movie 'Were the World Mine' - but definitely somewhere to start when we are next looking longingly at the handsome stranger across the bar at 'The Shift' or 'The Imperial' wondering "Could he be mine?"

Finally, I want to share

offering a role

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougster

hahahahah. kaleb, man. i go (as my dad would say) like the clappers. and this boi aint with no starfish either

boy isn't

Kaleb, man, I go

Neither is this boy with a starfish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

You should never beg a question. They're the grim reapers of the language world. That's why they all carry a scythe.



Smooth

2 general points:
1. Some things can't be stated briefly because they are rather complex
2. Sometimes people write for their own sake, not for their audience. The thread had moved on by the time I posted a response but I'd already done much of the thinking (and basically all of the writing) so I posted it anyway. I didn't put an expletive in me post for no reason.

Also, Phazz, you are not fat. I know, I've undressed you with my eyes.

complex.

expletive in my post

Phazz, you are not fat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneakos

i actually liked what u said so it werent just for ur sake

from a wider perspective iv actually been trying to consider th impact (if any) of epigenetics and transgenerational influences (eg trauma) that affect th genome thru successive generations and what that then means (if at all) for hormone production and mood effect

anyways - im still trying to get my head around what im thinking

so it was worthwhile for me

cheers F

you

your

I've

the

through

Anyway

I'm

I actually liked what you said, so it wasn't just for your sake.

From

(e.g. trauma)

(if anything at all)

effect.

Anyway, I'm

thinking.

It was worthwhile for me.