In Praise of Traditional Women

[Aeradalia]

It's hard to say, but personally I don't think they are errors. I think they are just "over efficiencies". I think we are born with certain predispositions to a whole range of defensive and offensive behaviors, which we later on develop as we adopt to our environment. Everyone gets angry and has destructive qualities, everyone also gets happy and has access to a whole range of positive qualities. It's the extent to which people use these qualities is what defines their character. An the extent to which they use these qualities can be defined on both their innate predispositions to certain behaviors (nature) and how successful these behaviors are to achieve the results they wanted, the more successful the more often they will repeat the use (nurture).

I think all of this somehow falls back into the "Archetype" behaviors described by psychologist Carl Jung. That at some level there are universal behaviors that we are born with, which are accessed by everyone. And these behaviors can be triggered by certain events. For example a few women start to act like a mother when they see or hear a baby cry, their "mother" archetype is triggered and they automatically fall into the mother role and start to act out the mothering behaviour, trying to protect and care for the baby. I think archetypes is also the reason why some guys becomes knights in shining armor, their "protector" archetype is triggered and they try to act out and be "successful" in that role.

I can understand the concept of there being archetypes... something possibly accessed through genetic memory (or very ancient cultural memory)... ahem... memories and behaviors proven favorable down the lines until it becomes nearly instinct.

I can also understand what you define as "over efficiencies." However, what I was discussing were true errors in these modified pathways that were originally hardwired to process physical stimuli, but now respond to emotional stimuli as well... as in the case of revulsion toward bitterness being built upon to form disgust toward an unfavorable idea. This seems to leave open a possibility for aberrant emotional development at least to some degree should there be a failure for these pathways to function correctly.

The failure I'm discussing wouldn't be the kind that result in an evolutionary advantage in modern society, as "over efficiencies" would, but would actually prove to be a slight hindrance to very crippling for an individual. If you do not respond appropriately emotionally as everyone else does, then not only would you fail to relate to other people, but you could suffer isolation from those people as well. This in turn becoming a form of mental illness.

Following this line of logic (which is built from speculation mind you), if the malformations of these pathways was controlled by genetics or the result of some sort of injury, then it could be possible that correcting the problem either through gene therapy (assuming in the future it could) or some other manner of healing. The mentally ill individual who does not feel the same emotions or not all the emotions that another individual is capable of could in theory be "cured" not by psychological coping strategies but by repairing a physically-based problem... thus having the missing emotions or interpretations of emotions restored.

That was the speculative flight of fancy I was pursuing.

[Mish]

However, what I was discussing were true errors in these modified pathways that were originally hardwired to process physical stimuli, but now respond to emotional stimuli as well... as in the case of revulsion toward bitterness being built upon to form disgust toward an unfavorable idea. This seems to leave open a possibility for aberrant emotional development at least to some degree should there be a failure for these pathways to function correctly.

If you do not respond appropriately emotionally as everyone else does, then not only would you fail to relate to other people, but you could suffer isolation from those people as well. This in turn becoming a form of mental illness.

I see, that's true as well. As can be seen in autistic people. They can't develop appropriate emotional and social behavior because they don't have the physical capacity to, therefore they suffer alienation.

However, there are also people out there who don't have physical problems, but are still mal adopted and still don't show appropriate emotional behavior. Their reasons can range from being isolated from others (thus unable to develop their social skills, possessing social skills of children) to being brought up or conditioned wrongly by their care givers (wrong type of behavior was being rewarded leading to wrong decisions and formation of a "difficult" character). I think there are many reasons why people can become mal adopted.

[CocoChanel]

I hate this thread. It's sooo wrong.

[Aeradalia]

I see, that's true as well. As can be seen in autistic people. They can't develop appropriate emotional and social behavior because they don't have the physical capacity to, therefore they suffer alienation.

However, there are also people out there who don't have physical problems, but are still mal adopted and still don't show appropriate emotional behavior. Their reasons can range from being isolated from others (thus unable to develop their social skills, possessing social skills of children) to being brought up or conditioned wrongly by their care givers (wrong type of behavior was being rewarded leading to wrong decisions and formation of a "difficult" character). I think there are many reasons why people can become mal adopted.

Very true... there are countless ways why and how a person can become mal adapted. This was just one avenue I was exploring, because if it were plausible then it would be a form of mental illness whose cause would not be shrouded in mystery, and could have a more straight-forward cure.

Organs can be malformed and corrected... why not the brain on some minute and seemingly minor level?

[misombra]

wow he really is hot, now i'm distracted. 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. then i proceeded to dismiss mis saying that i and cb are completely wrong and awaitied proof from her to which she posted articles about 8 yrs olds shooting their parents. to which i posted my scientific article based on info you have also found and have not posted the full article of. it's not about right or wrong, but it is open to debate and is inconclusive on both sides of the argument which essentially is my argument at this point. try and read that fras. it's english btw

um, sorry eco but that was not a scientific article, it was a news report. two totally different things.

also the theory of learned morals is conclusive. you are free to attempt to nullify this conclusion but you better get to cracking on some real research.

you might benefit from some studies in statistics and logic, dear.

[Charlie Boy II]

^^^^ you sound like a dead ringer for indi.

It is obvious morality is a social construct. But the ability to develop moral codes is undoubtedly within our genetic makeup. Every kind of society and culture has a behavioural code.

[misombra]

^^^^ you sound like a dead ringer for indi.

It is obvious morality is a social construct. But the ability to develop moral codes is undoubtedly within our genetic makeup. Every kind of society and culture has a behavioural code.

we are genetically made up to learn.

[emdc_l]

You seem to not realize that there are women who have not been fortunate to find a man who is GOOD. Not saying that you are a good man; don't even know you. But women have been forced to be homemakers AND career women because they can't depend on men.

[emdc_l]

Yeah, this post is WAY wrong.

[CAM]

Wow, I'm gone for 24 hours and all hell breaks loose.

Nothing to add. Very interesting reading.

Good night

[CAM]

^^^^ you sound like a dead ringer for indi.

It is obvious morality is a social construct. But the ability to develop moral codes is undoubtedly within our genetic makeup. Every kind of society and culture has a behavioural code.

You seem to not realize that there are women who have not been fortunate to find a man who is GOOD. Not saying that you are a good man; don't even know you. But women have been forced to be homemakers AND career women because they can't depend on men.

Okay....one thing to add....

There have also been many men who have not been fortunate to meet a good woman.

There are several women who have looked beyond me because while probably more than "good enough" (although I never let em know the full story on the sweet deal that could be theirs), I just wasn't everything they ever wanted in a clearly wrapped package. I'm sure I've done this same BS to a few women, too...broken some hearts, yes.

Let's be honest: we're not looking for "good enough"--we're looking for #1 (but humans, particularly men, will likely screw most everything on the path to #1). That's deeply ingrained animal nature.

There are those that settle for "good enough" (or someone that is a work in progress that we think they can change--never happens, BTW) and those that are stubborn.

[IndiReloaded]

It is obvious morality is a social construct. But the ability to develop moral codes is undoubtedly within our genetic makeup. Every kind of society and culture has a behavioural code.

What does this even mean, CB?

What is the difference b/t 'morality' (social construct) and 'the ability to develop moral codes'?

Do you define our 'ability to develop and construct Toyotas/Hondas/Mercedes' as also within our genetic makeup?

[Charlie Boy II]

it means that it is within our nature to develop behavioural codes which we, as a community abide by. What society exists without a common code of acceptable behaviour? Without it we wouldn't function as cooperative beings.

If morality was purely a cultural product you would hardly expect to see it in every known past and present culture (in varying forms).

[IndiReloaded]

Sure. Its in our nature to *develop* all sorts of things. Cars, skyscrapers, and particle accelerators. Hardwired genetically for those specific things? No, don't think so.

Emotions, which are believed to be hardwired, are the same for all humans. All cultures recognize a sad, happy, angry, etc. face.

NOT true for morals. Different for each society and even individuals, depending on their upbringing. Definitely learned.

If morals were hardwired, then we wouldn't need brainwash people with religion, would we?

Your genes don't care if something is 'right or wrong'. Only if you survive to reproduce. Am I missing something here about what you guys are talking about?

[Charlie Boy II]

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.