In Praise of Traditional Women

[Junket]

okay, I'll put what I'm saying as clearly as I can. Then I'm going to stop posting, before you start telling me how you read the Economist, and run your own company, and have a PhD, and start finishing your sentences with ''sweetie'' and ''honey''

1. Humans are communal creatures. We are inclined, by nature, to form groups and societies.

2. Central to our ability to live in large groups is the establishment of a common framework of universally understood rules of acceptable behaviour.

3. I agree that the details of those rules of acceptable behaviour differ depending on your upbringing. But there are certain values that don't really differ from culture to culture. For example, I've never heard of a culture or society where it is acceptable to murder someone without provocation, or to rape your friend's wife because you're feeling a bit toey.

3. If the concept of morality was completely artificial or man-made, you would expect to see wildly different concepts of moralities across cultures. And while they do differ greatly, there are certain common values you can see in most cases.

So while I agree each person's concept of morality is largely learned, the basic framework springs from the character of our species, particularly the ability to empathise and our social nature.

The point is, none of this develops in a vacuum. The ability to empathize is only learned by upbringing, assuming you don't have a defect in your brain like autistics do. Our cultures as they exist today aren't as they are because we naturally tolerate people that look different from us. It's taken centuries of science and government intervention for us to have reach the climate we live in today.

I've already provided evidence that if a person isn't nurtured, they can develop into a person that doesn't recognize other human beings, can't recognize their own face, and doesn't understand the concept there is a world outside of their's. I don't get, what you don't get.

Frustrating, because I have to go to work.

[ecojeanne]

The point is, none of this develops in a vacuum. The ability to empathize is only learned by upbringing, assuming you don't have a defect in your brain like autistics do. Our cultures as they exist today aren't as they are because we naturally tolerate people that look different from us. It's taken centuries of science and government intervention for us to have reach the climate we live in today.

I've already provided evidence that if a person isn't nurtured, they can develop into a person that doesn't recognize other human beings, can't recognize their own face, and doesn't understand the concept there is a world outside of their's. I don't get, what you don't get.

Frustrating, because I have to go to work.

i disagree

[misombra]

The point is, none of this develops in a vacuum. The ability to empathize is only learned by upbringing, assuming you don't have a defect in your brain like autistics do. Our cultures as they exist today aren't as they are because we naturally tolerate people that look different from us. It's taken centuries of science and government intervention for us to have reach the climate we live in today.

I've already provided evidence that if a person isn't nurtured, they can develop into a person that doesn't recognize other human beings, can't recognize their own face, and doesn't understand the concept there is a world outside of their's. I don't get, what you don't get.

Frustrating, because I have to go to work.

people just like to argue.

[IndiReloaded]

okay, I'll put what I'm saying as clearly as I can. Then I'm going to stop posting, before you start telling me how you read the Economist, and run your own company, and have a PhD, and start finishing your sentences with ''sweetie'' and ''honey''

Keep it civil, CB. There is a reason why scientists are hated as expert witnesses. We know what we are about and aren't afraid to point out when something is blatantly wrong or misunderstood.

So, from the biology & biochem PhD to the *law student* (no sweeties, or honeys) here you go.

1. Humans are communal creatures. We are inclined, by nature, to form groups and societies.

Yes. True. Nothing to do with morals, however.

2. Central to our ability to live in large groups is the establishment of a common framework of universally understood rules of acceptable behaviour.

No, actually we are driven to live in *small* groups, a la hunter-gather societies. Again, nothing to do with morals, just survival.

3. I agree that the details of those rules of acceptable behaviour differ depending on your upbringing. But there are certain values that don't really differ from culture to culture. For example, I've never heard of a culture or society where it is acceptable to murder someone without provocation, or to rape your friend's wife because you're feeling a bit toey.

These are learned behaviours, CB. If you look at chimps (who are genetically >98% identical to us) you see this kind^ of behaviour, including murder. Just b/c something is common to societies doesn't make it innate.

Read about memes. Things can have a *basis* in genetics, in the sense we are programmed to learn (which is what Miso has been saying all along), but there is no gene for 'don't murder'. In fact, if you look at animals, they murder all the time: cubs fathered by another male will be killed by the new mating partner in order to protect their own genetic investment.

If it was innate, I should be able to remove the 'don't murder' gene(s), which should be fairly easy to find since I would just have to take the differential b/t chimp and human sequence to find it. Sorry, no such.

3. If the concept of morality was completely artificial or man-made, you would expect to see wildly different concepts of moralities across cultures. And while they do differ greatly, there are certain common values you can see in most cases.

CB, I'll post it again: 'morality' is defined as the knowing the difference b/t right & wrong.

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

These are human concepts. Your genes, (which is what you are talking about if you insist on calling something innate) simply don't care about such lofty concepts. Genes are a product of evolution, which means successful survival to reproduce. Endit.

So while I agree each person's concept of morality is largely learned, the basic framework springs from the character of our species, particularly the ability to empathise and our social nature.

I agree with this^. But you still need to define 'basic framework', same question I asked Eco, and she couldn't answer me either. You are handwaving, guys.

Humans socialize (i.e. cooperate) b/c it increases chances of survival. Same for empathy, esp as regards child-rearing. But these things have nothing to do with 'right & wrong'. Again, from a genetic standpoint (innate), right = survive, wrong = death.

The problem I have with defining morals as innate (apart from the fact it is wrong) is that it means that humans are far less flexible than we know we can be. Again, children of murders are doomed to murder themselves? No.

Or, what about an environment where 'murder' is okay once the usefulness of a family/society member is past? Leaving old grannies out on ice-flows, or committing seppuku? How about certain dubious Islamic morals? Are these examples just exceptions, CB? Would you say these societies must be missing the 'moral gene'? These things are considered perfectly 'moral' in those societies.

Of course not. These morals have been taught. Not innate, sorry. Your 'rules' are not nearly as universal as you propose.

[chump4u]

When, come The Revolution, we burn pseudo-scientists on a flaming pyre of journalists and lawyers.

...And the world will be a better place, for you and me.

[IndiReloaded]

Nah, scientists are too dissociated and distracted to bother, in general. I do know better than to beat on such an emotional subject for people, but I enjoy arguing. Sometimes I see a new idea pop up.

I think we should just start our own society a la Huxley's Island or Cherryh's Cyteen. Leave them to fight over the scraps.

[misombra]

i think i'm missing my "like to argue" gene.

[IndiReloaded]

anyway indi i never actually said morals were inherent. i did however agree with cb in that there is an 'element' of morals within us as in we inherently know certain rights and wrongs instinctively

I copied this statement of yours directly, Eco. It is full of contradiction.

How is it that morals are not inherent, but we inherently know 'certain' rights and wrongs instinctively?

Instinct = inherent. (arising from our genetic makeup--nature)

Morals = right & wrong. (learned in context--nurture)

Do you want to check the standard definition for these terms?

I agree that emotions are inherent. What Mis, Fras & I are essentially saying, is that how they are acted upon is largely based on environment & upbringing. Morals are a way of modulating this response.

Is there anyone here who actually disagrees with this? Its really a very simple concept that is supported by pretty much all we know about early child development, psychology, and even pathology.

If you want to get a sense of how thin our social veneer really is, look at the link Fras posted about feral children. Or even observe normal toddlers playing with toys in a playgroup. Selfishness is innate. Kids take each other's toys and only realize their harmful behaviour when its negatively reinforced by a parent or a child who thumps them for it and grabs it back. That's not innate, that is social learning by consequence. The moral learned is: hey, if I take this toy, things actually end up worse for me than the brief pleasure I get from grabbing it.

[vashti]

Keep it civil, CB. There is a reason why scientists are hated as expert witnesses. We know what we are about and aren't afraid to point out when something is blatantly wrong or misunderstood.

.

Actually, that isn't the reason. My husband (also a scientist) teaches expert witness testimony classes.... According to him, they are hated because

1) so few of the jury pool understand what they are talking about.
2) they don't connect well on a personal level with the jury.
3) Juries find them boring.

[IndiReloaded]

That's also all true. LOL.

[ecojeanne]

i quite like this article
[url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/200906/moral-sentiments-in-the-brain[/url]

and this one linking disgust to morality
[url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/mystery-disgust?page=4[/url]

nurture AND nature
hehehe

[BoredGeorge]

Its funny how women say they are all liberated then go get jobs as a waitress and wear really tight pants so men can see their ass so that they get bigger tips.

Women are such a joke sometimes they should just accept they are stupid and useless apart from people having sex wit them. I mean so women are great and intelligent and brilliant but a lot more of them are just walking cumdumpsters and there is nothing wrong with that IMO. Then they go and get a job as a receptionist or something and call it their 'career' women are sometimes so stupid...

[misombra]

Our studies and the EGP model show that the brain circuit that produces moral behaviors depends critically on sufficient childhood nurturing, a stable the legal-political environment, and the social support we receive.

i like it too. interesting.

innate ability to learn morals. i'm glad you're starting to see things my way.

[vashti]

George, you need smacking. Do you live in LA? I will be happy to oblige.

[BoredGeorge]

I copied this statement of yours directly, Eco. It is full of contradiction.

How is it that morals are not inherent, but we inherently know 'certain' rights and wrongs instinctively?

Instinct = inherent. (arising from our genetic makeup--nature)

Morals = right & wrong. (learned in context--nurture)

Do you want to check the standard definition for these terms?

I agree that emotions are inherent. What Mis, Fras & I are essentially saying, is that how they are acted upon is largely based on environment & upbringing. Morals are a way of modulating this response.

Is there anyone here who actually disagrees with this? Its really a very simple concept that is supported by pretty much all we know about early child development, psychology, and even pathology.

If you want to get a sense of how thin our social veneer really is, look at the link Fras posted about feral children. Or even observe normal toddlers playing with toys in a playgroup. Selfishness is innate. Kids take each other's toys and only realize their harmful behaviour when its negatively reinforced by a parent or a child who thumps them for it and grabs it back. That's not innate, that is social learning by consequence. The moral learned is: hey, if I take this toy, things actually end up worse for me than the brief pleasure I get from grabbing it.

Feminist women are the ones that are most devoid of logic. Trying to argue with them is like setting up a random word generator and having a discussion with that.