Lynn+Motivation

While the perception that homosexuality is predisposed can have positive implications of political equality and social acceptance for homosexuals, it can also spur on the notion that homosexuality is a "defect" in nature. Much like race, the perspective that sexual orientation is inborn can alleviate fear and prejudice about homosexuals. This means achieving social equality will become relatively easier, and also will provide a rationale for civil rights protection for the homosexual community. Legal protection and a slight leverage in terms of political power might also be the benefits of the research. However, the research also carries the connotation that homosexuality is a defect to be eliminated, something that can be "fixed." Instead of viewing it as a characteristic of a person, it is likely that people will search for ways to alter the genetic structure for the person to be straight. This can put the homosexual community further down on the socioeconomic scale as a minority group.
 * What might be the social/political implications for there being a gay gene?**





Although images of thin people in popular culture are accounted as reasons for eating disorders, it is ultimately low self-esteem that contribute to this condition. Low self-esteem creates the basis for low self-respect, which then leads to the thought that oneself is not "good enough." Combined with society's general perspective on thinness ("the thinner the better"), the person is led to believe that by not eating, they can better their self-esteem. The perception that fat is disgusting, that their body does not fit into the frame of beauty are the motivating factors that result in severe eating disorders.
 * What seems to be the major motivating factor(s) for people that are affected by an eating disorder?**

1. Are we, as some might say, motivated by a desire to save our off-spring? Sociological research dictates that our altruistic behavior is preprogrammed as means of saving our off-spring--not always our own, but of humanity's.

2. Must there always be some sort of intrinsic reward for doing good? Unless there are extrinsic rewards (such as money or a social reward such as a "good guy badge"), there must be intrinsic rewards for doing good. The alleviation of guilt or the establishment of self-esteem are two biggest intrinsic rewards from altruistic behavior.

3. Mr. Otis once said, "That having integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching." If this is so, and no one knows when we have done good, would you still do good? Yes, but probably only to a degree. If it's an act of picking up trash, helping someone find their way, or other small altruistic acts, I might. I would also do the right thing in cases that I think karma will affect me (I do believe in karma). But honestly speaking, I wouldn't put too much of my time and effort into something that I will not be recognized for.

4. "Delayed reciprocal altruism", seems like a gamble - back to game theory, any way. Does this seem to make sense to you. That is that we act out of a desire to have what we have done being done to us? Yes, it does. I believe in karma, and that by doing good I can eventually receive the same (or essentially the same) in return even though it might not be immediate. 5. Are we ever being truly "selfless" when committing an act of altruism? Judging by the evidence, no. For whatever reason--the survival of humanity, intrinsic reward, or delayed reciprocal altruism--we seem to always have a reason for doing good.

Despite the evidence, I have to admit that I want to believe that some people are truly selfless. I've often wondered why humans try so hard to prove that human nature is essentially evil (or not so "great" at the least) and encourage misanthropy to the same degree.