The Fam - Quote :
- Dec. 29, 2008 -- Visiting -- or even just viewing photos of family members -- prompts brain activity that affects how you feel about them, your friends, and even yourself, a new study suggests.
The study is the first to compare brain activity associated with seeing relatives with that linked to seeing friends and strangers. It suggests our feelings about biological relatives are at least somewhat primal.
The findings may help explain everything from why our family can get on our nerves to ((#1)) why people who look like us can spark immediate feelings of trust, "but not lust," said Steven Platek, who co-authored the study with Shelly Kemp.
((#2))"We like to be around people that look more like us, but we do not find them as sexually attractive," added Platek, editor-in-chief of the journal Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience. "I think it is linked to our subconscious ability to detect facial resemblances so we avoid lusting after those that may be related to us."
((#3))Platek and Kemp also found that the brain ranks everyone socially, with relatives at the head of the line.
((#4))"I think facial resemblance is ranked right up there in importance with attractiveness," Platek said.
Since relatives are processed through areas of the brain linked to self-reference, the study could also help to explain why relatives cause us to take things personally. While we may tolerate a friend's loud laughter or snoring, for example, we may have less patience with a relative because we judge them similarly to how we judge ourselves.
"This research is a wonderful example of the fruitfulness of conducting cognitive neuroscience informed by evolutionary theory," said Todd Shackelford, a professor of psychology at Florida Atlantic University.
"I am hopeful that other researchers in the cognitive neurosciences will follow Dr. Platek's lead and take full advantage of the predictive power of a Darwinian perspective on the design of the structure of the mind," he told Discovery News.
It's likely, he explained, that a face we perceive as "friendly" is one that looks more like us. But how we later feel about that person could be tied to how we feel about ourselves, perhaps explaining the prevalence of arguments during family reunions and holiday gatherings.
Point #1 - This statement is false. It states that resemblance can cause a person to
trust another person with a similar appearance, "but not lust". This makes no sense. -- because what a person is attracted to
is lust! (by definition) In other words, there is no possible way to lust after a subject-object without likening that thing to the Self. (myself, yourself, theirselves, ourselves, etc.) If people, men, women, and children, are all attracted to likeness, because of the profound vanity innate within living beings, then the 'beauty' of another is directly related to a projection and reception of Self between the Self and the Other. For example, if the Other shares in common beauty, intelligence, and charisma, then you will be attracted to that Other insofar as you relate the connection of the positive traits. When it comes to 'family', this psychological tendency becomes even more extreme. Incest is the primal force for inter-familial relationships, namely in how sexual urges are repressed by all family members.
For example: have you ever heard the phrase, "I like you." Well, "I love you." means the same thing except it is a declaration of sexuality. "I want to fuck you!"
Because the statement above strangely reads,
"but not lust", it should be taken with suspicion. Where is the reasoning behind this, after all? Where is the explanation for
why not lust? The reason that the reasoning is missing is because it was/is censored by Society. It is essentially saying, paraphrased: "
You want to fuck the things that look like you, because you trust them ... but not your family members (because I would get in trouble and lose my job if I posted this in a news article)." Because the scientists and/or reporters do not want to lose their jobs, they cannot risk saying the Truth, which is, that family members
do want to fuck each other based on the exact reasoning they gave for extra-familial relationships! This is the consistency of Reason. This is why attraction is necessary and primal with regards to human sexuality.
Point #2 - This is another false statement. He is saying, paraphrased: "
We are attracted to what we liken with ourselves ... but we do not want to fuck ourselves (which is not true, again, because I would lose my job if I told the Truth of the matter, which is, the human animal survives through its vanity and narcissism)." Need I go into masturbation? Yes, I need to go there. If people were not attracted to themselves first-and-foremost before anybody else, then why would people find the need, OR CAPABILITY, to masturbate? The fact of the matter is,
because we love ourselves vainly, we do masturbate in a great number of ways. We touch ourselves, groom ourselves, feed ourselves, caress ourselves, scratch ourselves, etc. We do all of these things because we must love ourselves. If we did not care for ourselves in this way, then we would starve ourselves to death by purpose or "accident".
Furthermore, point #2 is incorrect in saying that we "avoid lusting after those who may be related to us". This is COMPLETELY FALSE. If this were true, then there would be no taboo behind incestuous sex acts, but there are. You can even find and see them throughout popular cultures, in movies, stories, myths, etc. Incestuous lust is the primary sexual force that people love to fantasize and think about,
but never talk about openly. To do so invalidates all Common Laws and especially Moral Laws (and especially Judeo-Christianity). Such incestuous relationships even go in a biological order (through 100% blood relation): father-to-eldest-daughter, mother-to-eldest-son, eldest-brother-and-sister, aunts-and-uncles-to-children, etc. These sexual attractions are the most repressed, which was the original purpose for Moral Laws. After untold amounts of generations and civilization, they are
still primal, which expresses how powerful sexual forces truly are.
Point #3 - This is a good point, but it runs counter to what this news article and scientific research apparently concludes about human sexuality. If we rank ourselves first, our family second, and friends thirst, then who are we most physically attracted to? How could it NOT BE ourselves, then our family, then our friends??? Offer me a possibility and I will consider it. I have
never heard, ever a reasonable case against this contrary in my entire life. And I have been paying attention...
This means that physical & sexual attraction is entirely engaged around likeness of genetic biological-physical traits, primarily based on power-relationships and self-mastery (i.e. self-confidence).
Point #4 - Here the speaker of the article exposes himself as fraudulent.
If it were the case that facial resemblance is a primal factor, or THE ONE-AND-ONLY primal factor for attraction, then sexuality would be most paramount in the self-to-self relationship (masturbation), the self-to-family relationship (incest), and the self-to-other relationships (friendship). 
Subject: News Confirmations 
Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:38 am
