In Praise of Traditional Women

[Junket]

actually i disagree. we inherently dislike to see something in people that we would see in ourselves as bad. therefore we make judgments...conditioning comes later.

Why have people been misquoting me so much lately?

I was referring to moral judgment.

Morals are learned.

[Reath]

So much of informations!!!!!!

[ecojeanne]

Meh. News people often get it wrong, Eco. Whoever wrote that title isn't understanding the point of the research either.

Last time I checked, *I'm* the scientist here, not you. I know this guys group at U of T. I'm not wrong. You are. Sorry.

actualy indi you can find this article elsewhere. in-fact why don't ya look up the researcher involved. uni of toronto btw being a scientist has nothing to do with reading english obviously

[ecojeanne]

Why have people been misquoting me so much lately?

I was referring to moral judgment.

Morals are learned.

so was i

_____

[Junket]

so was i

_____

Oh, in that case, you're wrong.

The only reason why you can empathize or sympathize with anyone is because you learned it. Feral children have been recorded as being deficient in these areas.

[IndiReloaded]

Thanks Eco. Unlike you, I have an institutional subscription to the actual journal. Here is what his group actually says (from the original paper):

The ability to detect and avoid toxins appears to
be very ancient: Sea anemones, which evolved about
500 million years ago, evert their gastrovascular
cavities in response to being fed a bitter substance
(30). That a system with the ancient and critical
adaptive function of rejecting toxic foods should be
brought to bear in the moral sphere speaks to the vital
importance of regulating social behavior for human
beings. Although the stimulus triggers for this
rejection mechanism may have shifted far from their
chemical sensory origins to the moral domain, the
basic behavioral program of oral rejection appears to
have been conserved. Thus, the metaphorical “bad
taste” left by moral transgressions may genuinely
have its origins in oral distaste.

Nowhere is he saying that morals aren't learned. What his research suggests is that some expressed emotion (e.g. disgust) seem to be tied to old neural systems related to survival, such as sensations caused by spoilt food. This is very common in biology, old systems being 'recycled' for new functions. In fact, its becoming the norm rather than the exception.

I hate it when media people (who are not scientists) cause lay people to over interpret results. Eco, you are just wrong. Sorry, if you want to understand more, go send Adam's group an email. He'd be happy to tell you he doesn't think morals are inherent.

If they were inherent, then we probably wouldn't have religious terrorists blowing themselves up, would we? That's not exactly a survival trait, you know?

Think Eco, don't parrot and think you understand. Make sure what you are saying actually makes sense.

[ecojeanne]

Oh, in that case, you're wrong.

The only reason why you can empathize or sympathize with anyone is because you learned it. Feral children have been recorded as being deficient in these areas.

well i'll give you an excerpt from the article that cast doubt (and that is literally what i am saying) on that

"People think about morality as being this pinnacle of human evolution and development," Chapman says. "But we showed that this very old and primitive response is playing an important role, too."

Harvard researcher Joshua D. Greene, PhD, tells WebMD that the research is consistent with studies he has done suggesting that emotion plays a key role in moral judgment.

my personal opinion is that it is a combination of nurture and nature which i have always thought. some people live horrific lives and may be predisposed to grow up to be horrendous but it's not guarantee in regard to morals and moral judgments.

it arrogant of mis and indi and yourself to assume moral judgements are completely taught when this article supports the doubt. but you guys can believe what you want to believe next time nurture verses nature comes up.

[IndiReloaded]

Eco, you are just searching for something that 'proves' you are right, except you aren't.

YOU claim morals are inherent. None of these researchers are actually saying this. They are saying *emotions* are inherent.
They are USING old neural systems to express emotions. Well, duh.

You are basically saying that b/c we are using metal that comes out of the earth that driving a car is *inherent* to humans?

Eco, its not your fault. Like I say, media people misinterpret these sorts of studies all the time. You simply want to make these connections that scientists themselves are careful to avoid. Its natural, but unfortunately, just wrong.

[Junket]

well i'll give you an excerpt from the article that cast doubt (and that is literally what i am saying) on that

"People think about morality as being this pinnacle of human evolution and development," Chapman says. "But we showed that this very old and primitive response is playing an important role, too."

Harvard researcher Joshua D. Greene, PhD, tells WebMD that the research is consistent with studies he has done suggesting that emotion plays a key role in moral judgment.

my personal opinion is that it is a combination of nurture and nature which i have always thought. some people live horrific lives and may be predisposed to grow up to be horrendous but it's not guarantee in regard to morals and moral judgments.

it arrogant of mis and indi and yourself to assume moral judgements are completely taught when this article supports the doubt. but you guys can believe what you want to believe next time nurture verses nature comes up.

What you've quoted doesn't support anything you're saying.

Feral children ought to be an excellent source of evidence in the continuing nature-nurture debate. Feral children cannot walk, talk, or socialise: they cannot show empathy with others. Indeed, these poor creatures are so apparently sub-human that Linnaeus classified them as distinct from home sapiens.

On the surface, therefore, feral children suggest that our upbringing is entirely responsible for endowing us with language, the ability to think and other traits. What happens in early childhood thus has a profound impact on the neurological development of the brain.

Quite simply, feral children are usually entirely unaware of the needs and desires and others. The concepts of morals, property and possessions are alien to them, and they can't show empathy with other people. If brought up by animals, they don't even identify themselves as human, but probably regard humans as "the enemy".

[url]http://www.feralchildren.com/en/nature.php[/url]

[ecojeanne]

actually no i'm not looking for anything to prove i'm right. what i am pointing out is that recent research agrees with my point of view and casts doubt on this so called 'concrete' science that moral judgments are taught. and i also agree with mish that it related to the debate nurture/nature. you can go ahead and say whatever you want, it makes no difference to the hilarity of saying it is conclusive either way

[Aeradalia]

Thanks Eco. Unlike you, I have an institutional subscription to the actual journal. Here is what his group actually says (from the original paper):

The ability to detect and avoid toxins appears to
be very ancient: Sea anemones, which evolved about
500 million years ago, evert their gastrovascular
cavities in response to being fed a bitter substance
(30). That a system with the ancient and critical
adaptive function of rejecting toxic foods should be
brought to bear in the moral sphere speaks to the vital
importance of regulating social behavior for human
beings. Although the stimulus triggers for this
rejection mechanism may have shifted far from their
chemical sensory origins to the moral domain, the
basic behavioral program of oral rejection appears to
have been conserved. Thus, the metaphorical “bad
taste” left by moral transgressions may genuinely
have its origins in oral distaste.

It makes sense that old systems would be recycled with new purposes. It would've been impossible to have a brain as sophisticated as ours completely redesigned from the ground up in just a few million years. This also supports further evidence that we did infact evolve from something simpler. Fascinating how emotional discomfort is experienced using reactions that are closely related to oral stimulation. I wonder what other reactions to stimuli have been refitted for use in a more psychological sense?

Also, this could indeed give some physical basis for some kinds of mental illnesses. If these psychological reactions are derived from ones originally based in the physical senses, then it is possible that genetics and physiology could help guide in the physical development of this... while the rest is more or less in the realm of the less tangible. So it would seem possible that deviations in behavior could be made in part through effects on a genetic and physiological level? I wonder if such minor alterations or deficiencies could have catastrophic effects in the psychology of a person that is separate of their upbringing? In essence, the creation of the 'bad seed'... those who are given the same treatment and upbringing as anyone else but turn out to be destructive no matter what -- could this be due to errors in physical development of the brain... at least in part?

[IndiReloaded]

Of course it doesn't matter to you, Eco. I just called your bluff. I demonstrated, clearly, you are in error.

Now, since you can't actually ADMIT you are over interpreting this article (please, feel free to comment on their discussion section I posted--did you understand it?), you have to back into the corner of 'belief', just like a religious person would.

"No matter the data, no matter if it makes sense. I will believe what I want to believe."

People like you, Eco, should just stay away from the research until you are prepared to take ALL of it, both what supports your ideas and what doesn't.

[Junket]

actually no i'm not looking for anything to prove i'm right. what i am pointing out is that recent research agrees with my point of view and casts doubt on this so called 'concrete' science that moral judgments are taught. and i also agree with mish that it related to the debate nurture/nature. you can go ahead and say whatever you want, it makes no difference to the hilarity of saying it is conclusive either way

Next thing you're gonna try to prove is that people have souls.

Jeez, it's like trying to argue with a Christian.

I once tried to explain to a girl that the evidence of evolution was apparent and still on-going even just in how many Africans developed sickle cells, which is a defense against malaria.

Nope, she wouldn't have it. Didn't want to comment on that, just rejected it and lived happily in her fairy tale world.

[IndiReloaded]

Also, this could indeed give some physical basis for some kinds of mental illnesses. If these psychological reactions are derived from ones originally based in the physical senses, then it is possible that genetics and physiology could help guide in the physical development of this... while the rest is more or less in the realm of the less tangible. So it would seem possible that deviations in behavior could be made in part through effects on a genetic and physiological level? I wonder if such minor alterations or deficiencies could have catastrophic effects in the psychology of a person that is separate of their upbringing? In essence, the creation of the 'bad seed'... those who are given the same treatment and upbringing as anyone else but turn out to be destructive no matter what.

Well, it would be interesting if people who were unusually sensitive to certain tastes were also prone to other behaviours, wouldn't it?

Dalia, thank you. I have faith again in young people understanding what they are reading.

[ecojeanne]

[QUOTE=IndiReloaded;495874]Of course it doesn't matter to you, Eco. I just called your bluff. I demonstrated, clearly, you are in error.QUOTE]


no infact you took a part of the excerpt which btw the article i posted also refers to which points out to me you ommited any further info which related to what i am referring to.

bluff what bluff? tsk tsk