The yuk factor and others (page 6)

GrreatTeacher

"Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left/Right Political Sensitivities"

Kevin B. Smith et al. October 19, 2011

(Sorry, I could not figure out how to make a hyperlink with a tablet.)

The thesis is that the more disgust sensitive a person is, the more likely they support conservative causes like opposition to gay marriage (icky).

Hi, Cofty! Glad I caught you. My son plays online with friends from the UK and usually comes crawling out from his room about this time at night because all of his friends have gone to bed. What a pity, him and his first world problems!

cofty

hahaha poor lad. Sleepy heads at an English school somewhere tomorrow.

humbled

"The Paradox Called Gay Republicans" is an interesting read, Great Teacher.

I was raised by a conservative Republican father. I actually am grossed-out by blood pudding. Yet I deal much with blood when I butcher meat.

I have over-come a fairly low threshhold for disgust through necessity. I submit that all of us will avoid the unpleasant when we can. I know I do.

However.

Everyone knows that sometimes shit happens. It's not like anyone embraces it or likes it.

It's only this: when shit happens, some of us who would like to walk away---well, we can't. So we have learned to get along with it somehow. It usually involves gagging, avoidance and finally looking at it square, closely and somewhat philosophically. It's not about being brilliant or being brave.

We just learn to deal with it.

I believe we can think. We can get a hold of our emotions. We can change our feelings if need be--even about things that are yukky.

jgnat

Humbled, you are coming out with great gems. They are keepers, LOL! "We need to be careful to pick the yuk out of our own eye before picking the "Yuk" out of our brother's.", and, your "[crap] happens"! (I still can't type some words....my own conditioned yuk!).

Welcome, Grreat Teacher! Yes, the preference of some moral foundations over others by political affiliates was mentioned by Haidt as well. I found other scholarly articles when googling "Disgust Sensitivity". Very interesting.

Tony the Tiger

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025552

Mom, I am pleased that thinking about this hurt your head, just a little bit. Various items on your list I would categorize as violating other moral principles. For instance, abusing a child is breaking the nurture imperative.

jgnat

Smith quoted Haidt in another study and says this:

Based on an analysis of disgust elicitors in the USA, Japan, and India, they identified seven domains in which disgust is elicited, These were: foods, animals (especially those associated with spoiled foods, such as cockroaches), body products (e.g., waste), hygiene (e.g., body odor), sex, body envelope violations (including deformities of the body), and death (Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 2000; Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994). Haidt, McCauley and Rozin (1994) developed a scale (the DScale) that assesses sensitivity to disgust reactions in each of these seven domains. They validated their disgust sensitivity scale in behavioral tests of reactions to actual or potential contact with a wide range of disgust elicitors (Rozin, Haidt, McCauley, Dunlop, & Ashmore, 1999). They report positive correlations between disgust sensitivity (the DScale) and fear of death and neuroticism, and negative correlations with experience seeking (Haidt et al., 1994).

Consider the selling point for the Witnesses is the hope of living forever. I have noted how many Witnesses are unprepared for old age, infirmity and death. They fear it.

How about "kissing a corpse", building an aversion in Witnesses to building a relationship with a "worldling", not to mention the consequent problems in the bedroom!

Apognophos

I don't quite know what that brother was thinking when he said that, but I believe it was a one-off remark. I imagine that most in the audience with UBMs were actually more insulted or shocked by it, than actually influenced by it. If the Society had a habit of calling unbelieving mates by terms like that, yes, it would be something to be concerned about, because eventually they would be conditioned to think that way.

jgnat

It comes out of the idea that non-Witnesses won't make it to Paradise, Apognophos. No eternal love for us. Our spouses might as well be kissing, well, you know. I think I heard of this analogy through Blondie.

A few thoughts as I was commuting to work this morning.

If a "disgusting thing" can be acclamitized with exposure, and that exposure is best if voluntary and for an extended period rather than short bursts (I suspect with short bursts the person quickly reverts to their original feeling), I wonder if this is the success behind Hassan's interventions. He gently and persistently challenges the subjects aversions long enough that they can overcome their initial revulsion. On the flip side, short exposures to "worldlies" at the door, regularly repeated, actually reinforce the person's aversion.

I recall the testimony of a Chinese Christian pastor who was incarcerated for many years because of his beliefs. In order to break him, the prison set him to cleaning out the latrines. The pastor flipped this disgusting job around, realizing that the job gave him extended time alone for prayer, worship and meditation, and that the guards left him alone because of his smell. I wonder if the extended exposure gave him the ability to overcome the natural aversion.

Apognophos

It comes out of the idea that non-Witnesses won't make it to Paradise, Apognophos. No eternal love for us. Our spouses might as well be kissing, well, you know.

Oh, I realize that. I was questioning whether his motive was really to instill disgust for one's UBM. I think it was more a matter of trying to shock the JW spouse into realizing that their mate is not going to be with them in paradise, therefore they should...? That's the part I'm not clear about because I don't recall the context of the remark. It might have been intended to spur the believing mate to try harder to bring their UBM into the truth instead of accepting the status quo (since a lot of JWs don't seem to make any attempt to convert their UBMs).

I just don't see it as a significant remark in terms of overall WT teaching, because the Society is not in the habit, as far as I can recall, of trying to put a wedge between believing and unbelieving mates with rhetoric like this.

The yuk factor and others

Share this