We humans have long had an unconscious envy of the animals that maintained superior senses over us. Most of our daydreams as a child in one way or another always involve a super ability. Things like superior pheromone saturation being popular for many teenagers alone. The list is vast when we look into the literature through the ages. Even outside of normal mythology we find in the religious texts and lore examples of super sense and ability. One example is saint Agnes, who was claimed to have breasts that would seduce any man. They apparently were so powerful that they had to hack them off when she was imprisoned, so the guards wouldn't be placed under their power. this is real, this did happen, one super sense of humanity is the insistent nonsense we partake of in our history. glibness aside, there is this bizarre necessity to have super sense in our imagination.long have we pondered both the validity of it as well as the essence of it. one of the first things i had learned about relationships with people is that the imagination is an impossible foe. if, a person is against another human being's imagination, it is a hopeless task. reason being, the imagination is not bound by physical law, it can evolve and adapt beyond the original source, sometimes to a point of the original source not even being recognizable. we all do this, it is part of being the 'tool' ape. we fashion models in our minds. everyone is a creator of sorts. so the act of 'knowing' things beyond the present evidence or environment , since it remains unfathomable, logically, has always been regarded as a super power and often times providence of magical practices. be they religious leaders or arcane masters.

 humans, are fascinating as an animal. we are like sharks, in dark water. with only our sense of peculiarity to guide us as we circle around trying to identify and assess aspects of our selves. such is the case here. the fortune tellers, the seers and modern clairvoyants all have one thing in common, the fact they are iconic of a element of human existence that is recognized by and until now has defied explanation. we of course do not have the entire spectrum figured out, but rest assured we have a working concept. the first thing though, in keeping with the spirit of this topic, is to refer to probably the one power or sense that defies explanation. we do actually have one. it is a phenomena, which we can not for the life of us, figure out. it is called intuition.  i don't wager it is uniquely human, but i would also conjecture it is hard to recognize in animals. communication after all plays a large part in all the supposed super sense and abilities. there is however a unique version of it , that does surely exist in humans. as it is lent to us by our rational thought. where we can go, in our abstract nature with the models of the universe that we each have at our disposal, for comparison, we seem to be able to deride seemingly impossible knowledge from incredibly unrelated facts.

 it is funny. most people would never place intuition among the favorites, the list as follows would contain esp,precognition,clairvoyance,premonition,remote viewing, mind over matter and many other abilities that we claim or sense, as it were , we have. of these all i can safely devise a pretty good outline of what may be happening. the power of unconscious suggestion is a true force in human populations. it can even create stuff like deja vu, serendipity and that weird sense of going to the right place at the right time for the right reason. all of these can be systematically explained effectively, by suggestion and unconscious environmental stimulus. the mind is an information hungry simbiot when it comes to the world. you may say it is like a glutton who will continue to eat when full.

 but intuition? it defies everything. it literally can come from nothing. it is like a knowledge that exists instantly and if followed always proves to be right. we have saying that explain this, always telling someone to follow thier intuition when a choice is presented.

 examples of intuition : knowing how to use a machine, never having seen it before. knowing how to recognize a language structures and possibly more, never having seen it before. a large part of the old farmer tradition relied on intuition.knowing how the animals and the environment interplay. much of the almanac as it existed in prehistory was built on various forms of intuition.intuition itself is easy to follow, it is just learning how to listen to it. that apparently is the problem. we have another name for an aspect of it, common sense. which, many jokingly would agree is a rare commodity. yet, it does exist in all of us. it can be a future projection, a past insight or present sensation. all of these can more can be the main part of an intuitive response. yet, what it is, technically, still remains unanswered. the large problem is the fact that there is no indicator at all. there is usually, no way the information unconsciously could have reached the performer. they just somehow knew what to do.

 so, you cant guess the blackjack table and be kicked out after being accused of cheating, but you can intuitively know how long you can stay around before they kick you out.(though in that aspect i would postulate that the dealer is sending signals). is it a true survival trait? yes. in fact that is why it defies explanation. it is a sense, that we can only see through it's eyes. therefore we can not extract much from it. it just happens. we have social intuition, female intuition being famous. it seems to be, at best a state of mind. where it comes from is beyond present rational discourse.

 the present biggy for us, is called esp. we are told that we have that as a primarily latent thing. it was claimed proven by a mathematician. however the story of that is somewhat jaded. they only talk about the odds of getting something right an extraordinary number of times. they do not however explain that if a person gets something wrong an x number of times , this too is esp. this is kind of funny. if you guess say 62 cards wrong out of hundred, then you have esp, according to the math. when we learned about suggestion and body language. we tried to eliminate the aspects of the test that would contain conceivably an element of those fallacies. things became more and more inconclusive. however, this shouldn't surprise anyone. intuition would have told you it was flawed from the start.

This is a subject that i find many people have a problem with.largely because most people believe themselves to be something of an armchair commiserate of the application of psychology. such is this tendency of modern humans, i would even wager that some psychologists do not have the right idea of psychology.( i am a bold one aren't i?). the main consensus of the difference between psychiatry and psychology is that the latter can prescribe drugs. this is however far from the real case. i remain somewhat  disappointed with the clinical psychologists that practice this formula. it is non progressive and not really what psychology is all about. it is things like this that derange the mindset of the public.as it is, the public really are only aware of a minor part of the real science and this provides an interesting entry point into this discussion, for as the reader learns the truth, they will hopefully become aware of the real concept of psychology.

first, why would a previous student of anthropology even know about psychology? well, psychology is part of anthropology. this is a funny thing to me when i try to talk to people about it. the field of anthropology is a study of the human, this is actually divided up into 4 fields, and depending on your personal vision potentially five. those divisions are archeology, physical, cultural, psychology and (still debated) linguistic. anything outside of these is called applied anthropology and that would include things like forensics, primatology, human anatomy,clinical psychology and sociology. the latter remains questionable for it's use of cultural anthropology as data to inscribe a non existent variation of social norm based on statistical average. i personally don't like sociology , it removes the elasticity of the human individual towards survival and life strategies. it seems to dictate a mental vision of some mental attitudes very similar to the church, in tending to a flock of human lemmings. it also makes people think that cultural anthropology is a subset of it, when really it is the other way around. for the record, sociology is not a real science, it cant be reliably falsified. you will always get some kind of conflicting data , which makes us all proud of ourselves as individuals i think. we always want to be the lesser percent.

real psychology suffers greatly at the hands of clinical psychology. the reason being is how things really happened. it starts with Darwin, who said, we come from monkeys. this as you can imagine had it's abrasive effect on the ego structure of the elitist group. the story of this of course still goes on to this day. we actually have modern schools trying to force the contradiction into the science classrooms. creationists are constantly trying to force a faith based belief system into the same reference as a science that has long since been proven to be pretty much the way things went. common people do not understand how destructive this is, because they don't understand how science, real science , works. there must be a falsifiable identity with any of the facts that exist in a science statement. this means simply, i must be able to prove the exact same thing , through exact demonstration the exact same result. so for example, i can prove anywhere that gravity is a force that attracts objects to earth. i can also prove that undeniably it is not a form of magnetism. plus although at different spots it may fluctuate in strength, i can still prove nonetheless it is persistent. (the solar system itself remains the testimony of this fact). it is somewhat comical that the very same egalitarianism that would deny this providence of science in order to save hubris of the human race, find no problem in accepting species in pedigree animals. when, beyond a doubt, the very concept of primate, or primitive as applied in anthropology, clearly can show that yes, a lemur has very much the same physiological traits as humans. adaptation and the eons of application of different strategies notwithstanding, we still have the same type of teeth as them. a fact that remains one of the only ways we can identify a majority of the potential pre-human fossils.

now, what happened next after Darwin is interesting. Freud came out and made his mark on the psyche of the people. he is thought to be a brilliant psychologist. however, i have a different take on him. to me , he is a primatologist, who studied the primate species of man. i say this because basically the whole end result of his work is a simple statement, that we think like monkeys. i get a kick out of this. believe me when i say , i have had heated arguments with psychologists about this. which is really just a extension on their part of the way the early nineteen hundreds felt about the whole enterprise. imagine, a greater then though self inflated eclectic club , known as human, first had to swallow the concept that we come from monkeys, then a brilliant man came forward and said we think like them. the next step, psychology. which as it tried to figure out it's place in anthropology, found out via two men , skinner and Walton, that we also act like monkeys. well that was the last straw. the conspiracy and disfavor revolving around skinners experiments and the illicit claim that he actually experimented on his very own daughter, to Walton and his emancipation from the apa, based on a scandal that would be non effectual in the modern world , involving his wife. forcing him to take his behaviorist theories and apply them to a alternate profession. media, which to this day is a valid and real science that is preying on an unsuspecting public, too brainwashed to actually understand the ramifications of that statement. seriously, just like i can guarantee gravity, a real science, behaviorism and the manipulation of it can be constantly proven in laboratory and public. we , the public are the great experiment that is making commercial enterprises rich. kind of nice that the guinea pig in this aspect actually pays the researcher. as a fellow human , all i can say is, the strength of this science, as it is applied to creating a market is so strong, it can influence humans to do things like stapling their stomach or any other objectively gross form of self mutilation , just to appease the mating instinct alone. it is because of this deranged abuse a lot of social and cultural things hang in unrealistic balance. i have no idea where we are going because of this, but, i can at least say that because unnatural motivation exists in the instinctual urges, if this was to continue for any earth relative amount of time, we would be at the mercy of the very thing we create. almost like being trapped in a space capsule, while moving through cosmos. at total mercy to the technology that put us there in the first place.anyways, so we have darwin: we are monkeys, Freud: we think like monkeys and the cherry on top, psychology: we act like monkeys. first, i am generalizing psychology and a sole aspect of it to show you how it applies to anthropology. the scope of psychology however remains incredibly diverse.

If i were asked who i think a good example of a psychologist is, i would easily say desmond morris. as a teen i was endeared to read his work and i have always found it to be pretty sound in his application of psychology. though, his title is a zoologist, he applies his science ina wonderful way where the psychology of the human animal is quite evident.because in its base form psychology is simply how or why we see the universe the way we do.thusly, in his book the naked ape, morris explains why we have less hair and look the way we do. the conception is both dextrous and very well formulated. a person would have a hard time not applying some aspect of his premise to many of modern day behaviors. the book is a joy to read and i will leave those who havent read it to seek it out.just be suffice to say that as a form of example, his brilliance clearly demonstrates what psychology is about.incedently the social hubris that is prevalent amongst us has had a field day attempting to discredit and potentially weaken the concepts of morris cooly adept and sober analysis. i mean , the fact that females show more cleavage when ovulating is always met with varied acceptance. it seems the game that darwin had brought forward to us, still is being played at the entry level.

as for psychology as we understand it, there is a kind of rift between the public representation and the actual science. when, at about the early 1900's all this fascinating discovery began, the application of the data was extremely more expansive. clinical psychologists were making a mint and they were randomly applying their perception and variation of the science on the public. with mixed success and unrealistic personal gain.the psychologists, were miffed greatly by this. it was like a baseball player simply getting a jersey and talking the talk obtaining the wealth and recognition. so, in an effort to try and control the clinical or applied anthropology of psychology, they were at a point of banning any clinical psychologists from their get together. eventually it was finally decided that, a clinical psychologist can only declare them self a doctor of psychology if they at some point submit a research paper or in modern times dedicate some time towards the research of psychology. the same kind of situation exists for medical practitioners. though i do not know if it for similar reasons.i imagine it probably is though, it makes sense. as knowledge of the human anatomy is an applied aspect of anthropology. i am sure there is some aspect of this control in the field of medicine. remember, medicine is not necessarily a biological or physical thing. tribal medicine for instance, which is yet again an aspect of anthropology through cultural means, is not entirely a take two pills and call me in the morning aspect.

as for the beginning tenets of psychology, there were three major visualizations. which i personally became to realize that in actuality is really four. the fourth being a mixture of the other ones, which i tend to believe is the real psychology. there was structuralism, behaviorism and individualism. the first was a concept of linear foundation. sort of like a baby needs to learn how to walk before they begin to explore the greater part of the world. the flaw in it is evident in our prehistory, as for instance, our prehuman ancestors didn't need to learn how to make clothes first in order to manifest the ability to create fire. secondly behaviorism, is largely where i am at  or strive for anyways when i write to you guys, because it is the purest form of expression in the organism. you might say it is the equivalent of the spirit of the animal is in the eyes. however, since most humans can easily think or truly be expressing something completely different then what is visibly or not relevant to the senses, this creates some curious contradictions. an example is how we can defy our instinct to run from fire, in order to use it. all other animals run. so, visibly you would potentially see the psychological stress of being near fire, but mentally we are able to overcome this and make use.hunger strikes, abstinence and many other types of deprivation are forms of this.lastly is the individualism, which is quite effective as a social manipulator. examples include the iq test, business best employee awards and any other form of recognition that in some way excludes an individual from the rest. basically the whole thing came up as a debate against the other two. sure, i may be that, but i am different type of perception. people liked that one instantly, it made them human and made them feel empowered again instead of just another form of monkey. this spread like wildfire into the business sector , who used the tests to manifest the perfect worker. through statistical analysis. the ones that would be deemed most worthy were the easily manipulated ones, the ones that would be rejected would be the free thinkers. eventually, the tests were banned as a form of occupation testing, but not without actually even resorting to the ludricious idea of the shape of the skull of the person, which is formed through random chance at birth, being an indicator of intelligence and competence. it was called phrenology and is ludicrous. but that is the legacy of individualism.nowadays you see its use in the magazines as tests. how to tell if your mate is human. take our test, take the score at the bottom and see what kind of individual you are. crazy stuff. but still pretty strong. in the clinical psychology aspect it is how they apply the dsw, or list of disorders and syndromes and how various recognizable symptoms are tallied up.

the funny thing, about individualist and what it has become as use is, it is under the conformity of a structuralist backdrop. so true psychology is largely behaviorism, with variances of the other two mixed in for good measure. this makes perfect sense for an advanced species such as our self, when it comes to our social behavior and interactions. but does this entirely answer the question, which anthropology created it for? that being why do we see or sense or perceive the world the way we do? we as a species? be hard pressed to find any definitive construct for that. easier to find a dr phil bonker fest with variations of obvious common sense strewn about with good measure. this, is the power of individualism and clinical psychology at work. basically, what the original psychologists were concerned about has happened. which is indeed disconcerting.

 Something that has kind of irked me in modern times is this need for humans to maintain the mythic great justice dealer. It is a thing we embrace that when a suspected felon is placed under it's inspection, there is only the truth. In the old days it was the omnipotent being that would cast it's wisdom either within a lifetime or supposedly after. People believe this even to this day. I myself as a human will admit to just desserts as a superstition. It is just this overbearing need for fairness that can be traced as far back as even our quadruped ancestors, still existing even to this day in primate species. we are naturally seeking fairness in everything and will exhibit both the action and expectation instinctively. which is a great thing when you think of it for an animal that depends on it's social behavior for existence. however, there is this other extension we have ultimately shown and produced within our cultures. we want and desire a be all and end all when it comes to finding the truth about a judgement. As a result, lie detectors were seen as god like. that was until ideas like social chameleons and the fun experiments with galvanic stress meters demonstrated a potentially flawed result. it later became a  question of perception. so the entire hopes of a society would be based on the expertise of the reader of the graphs to ascertain the validity of the person being interviewed statements.it began to look like there was no hope for the proper and just assessment for people suffering from psychopathic or similar disorders. the hypnosis concept was also brushed off as being highly subjective and via the unconscious state of heightened suggestibility on the person placed under, there was no real way to deduce what was real or planted via body language into the persons mind. basically , if you stand back you can almost chart the understanding of science towards the complexity of the human mind and capability through the quest of the human race to produce a proper form of judgement.which remains separately interesting.

 in modern times though we have the miracle of dna. it was claimed to be absolute answer to cases and judgement calls . more reliable then a finger print and extremely accurate. which as a previous student of the biological sciences i don't find all that surprising. as far as claims go. but reality, as i always tell my friends, is a whole lot different or at least says a different story.one of the things people have a hard time accepting is that each individual is really a mess load of individual cells. which in that simple statement comes across rather well. but the idea or the true meaning never seems to get across. i have a model i use in my mind when i think of this. it goes like this. i picture a primordial sea, which is pretty good for life. i then picture the individual single celled organisms all swimming and doing their business of living. one of the catches of leaving the ocean was to somehow bring the ocean with you. so, we have a cell that has a fairly tough outer membrane and is remarkably semi-permeable. some things go in, other things go out. this is the casing. inside we need something to maintain the salinity of the ocean. so we have the endocrine system. we need water that has oxygen, so we have slightly moist tissue that will separate the oxygen from the air. lungs, only work if moist. same thing for any animal, even worms have to keep their skin moist in order to breathe through the skin. this all really just equals the same thing as being in the water.so things like this exist in the body and the main point i need to make is. each one of the cell types we have can be found in some form in the wilds living on their own. if you go along this way of though you will hopefully see us as a type of coral reef. extremely advanced, but nonetheless an entirely contained coral reef. this is basically what animals and humans and pretty much anything that is multi-cellular really are. the most incredible form of what you would find in an ecology of the primordial sea.

 seems pretty heavy doesn't it? but it gets more fun , when you consider that the animals or cells as it were that live as ourselves, are pretty much unchanged. if i were to compare the muscle cell of an alligator to a hippo and throw a platypus in for good measure, they are basically the same animals. the only difference, that would be of  heavy importance , is that the dna is different. That is it. this is why we can transplant animal organs and the subject can potentially live. the cells, are the same animal pretty much. really it all comes down to maintaining what that particular batch of cellular colony considers a good environmental. the acidity and the salinity and the water content and so on, remains different. but you can see quite easily that each and every animal is in someway trying to recreate the ancient ocean within it's biology. so for example, the flagellates which created the amazing contradiction called the euglena, are also existing in the body of a human. the throat has them lining the interior. the tails are used to help discard the flotsam that can not be digested by our immune system which is found in the lungs.the immune system is a symbiosis of a animal called the amoeba. which by all rights is still pretty much the same, only because of the ocean it lives in now, (the human blood stream) it has specialized feeding. our eyes the retinal cells are a prelude to possibly the cells that feed of of light via the sun , similar to plants i would suspect. but somehow these wonderful animals * the eyes) have evolved over massive eons to be triggered by light and preform a function that nerves, another variation of a free roaming type that would utilize the chemical composition of water and acidic emission to defend its self from predators.these things and many more of what we can find just inside of humans still exist freely and roaming in some form or the other. i admit some may be way more evolved out there or alternatively having adapted exclusively for some purpose in the animal's body. they are nonetheless in most cases, the same animal. the differences being only minor, like a seal to a walrus or a whale to dolphin. but consider that even in cross species some of these animals (cells) are still pretty much the same. muscles in fish are the same as in a earthworm, they are the same in a squid and they are the same in a turtle. the function, general over all look and method are the same. i personally find this fascinating and i am sure the reader can see my love of paleontology shining n this. because well, we have living fossils within the very biosphere of the earth animals. the legacy of the cell and it's ingenious colonization as a means to survive is by far one of the first earth changing events and it still remains the one single most powerful strategy that life has on earth. so you can imagine, that since they haven't really changed all that much. this was a winning deal from the start.

 Yet. the main difference that remains striking true is the dna. the genetics of a rabbit versus a crayfish are explicitly unique for each species. As we become more familiar with the variations , we become more aware of the subtle differences between each individual member of a species.it creates interesting science, for instance, a wolf is not a dog. no matter how much i try to explain that to some people they wont buy it. the wolf is actually in it's own class for a reason. another example is how bears are related to seals. whales have been shown to be genetically related to wolf like creatures through fossil dna. we have a mix of neanderthal in us. this however is where i begin to jump of that train. reason for it is because, well there is this thing called mtdna, which is transferred through only the mother-> children. there is no evidence of neanderthal mtdna in any humans. since you need a mother to be born, it kind of creates a problem doesn't it? here is where it gets fun. i do not doubt that they have found neanderthal dna. but i also do not doubt that neanderthal is human. so it would make sense that their dna is similar and in some cases identical by some percent. after all, a rose is a rose by any other name. so what we see, is the liberal use of the end all to be all of the magical god of genetics. proclaiming a fact that really cant be disproved. why? because it only makes sense. here is an example. a triangle has three sides, a right angle one, a isosceles and every other variation all have three sides. if i look at the facts on paper, i can safely say that they are all related. such as the case with genetics and dna. technically i can say we are related to fish, worms, mollusks and single celled organisms.it becomes redundant.

 the only true problem is the way society has made dna , the unquestionable authority when it comes to judgement. it can be no more then an indicator. a good one, but nonetheless, because i can show that a brown haired Caucasian male from german  ancestry has similar genetics to any other same origin. i can only show that there is a similarity to that race. it does not indicate an individual. the fear of this all powerful creation we have fashioned has many times forced innocent people to give up, simply because of the superstition. which is what we want. we want as a people something that eradicates the fear of the unpunished and unspeakable acts in our society. we keep looking for it, we keep hoping for it. it is how we maintain our belief in the pursuit of justice.hence forth you wont see very much discussion like this one  i am having regarding dna as a means of proof positive. there are so many of these kinds of tests in society too, the blood test for example. which is actually more reliable and certainly more exact. simply because of the possible chance of being a match is pretty slim. compare that to two species of animal of the same race. be more viable to find what is not the same as an indicator. so, i question that. i question it a lot. to anyone out there, that has fallen victim to the witch hunt superstition of the dna judgement call, as a fellow human, please accept on my behalf my sincere apologies. i can only pray that your pain was not long and not life threatening. i know some would question this, but to be honest. we haven't even mapped out insulin. we haven't even mapped out humans. the way it works is like this. a bunch of blotches are compared to a template created by an average compilation fashioned through intensive research. ( i am not debunking the science at all). then, when held to each other the similarities are checked and if x amount are same then bingo we got the bad guy. sound familiar? it should, it is what a lie detector does.almost the exact same process really. so, if lie detectors are considered fallible, why then is the dna one not? because, we need the be all to end all. otherwise people would have no faith or ability to feel safe about anything. the main reason it is used is because of the superstition. which works fine and if it prevents many people from doing anything horrible , then thank god. however, the question remains doesn't it? do we still have to use medieval tactics to try and discourage criminal and horrid actions? under the guise of science, we still are not much farther from the witch hunt mob mentality.just something to think about.thanks for reading.