In Praise of Traditional Women

[Junket]

Are you speaking Irish?

Because I cannot understand that post at all.

[Aeradalia]

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

I almost want to say there are correlations between heightened or diminished sensitivity to physical stimuli and mental illness, but I do not have the resources to support this. However, it is worth looking into to see if this is not only possible, but does happen with some reliability. Have there been any studies to map this correlation? If one affects the other, then there might be a common variable, like a gene or a break down of physiology (hormonal, injury... etc). Should this all prove true, then it might be possible to track down the root cause of mental illness, and possibly reverse the effects rather than teach people to cope with the dysfunction.

In regards to Eco, I commend you on your efforts, but you didn't fail from lack of sufficient information. You didn't approach a scientific discussion scientifically -- in that you work to disprove... not prove your claim. It is far easier to disprove something than it is to prove it... and it also keeps you from being led by false hope from the belief that you are right.

[IndiReloaded]

Eco, I just posted the last part of their discussion where scientists tend to sum up the point of a paper. That paragraph comes directly from the original Science paper. I can access that, I suspect most cannot. Including you.

Anyway, if you do have access to the whole paper, just cite me the section where they say that *morals* are innate. Not what the reporter wrote, the actual research group. BTW, morals =/ = emotions. They are not the same thing. I think this is the source of your confusion. Morals are concerned with the 'goodness or badness' of human character and right and wrong. They are learned. You can see this simply b/c of the variety of moral codes that exist in different societies.

Emotions are a natural, instinctive state of mind that comes from circumstance, mood, and relationship to others. These are innate. A big clue about this is that anger, sadness, happiness, joy, disgust, fear... all are found in ALL societies across the human species. While not direct proof by itself, this is a big clue that something is innate, as opposed to taught.

You are confused, Eco. Try not to become entrenched in your opinion. Understand what this group is actually trying to say.

[Junket]

Emotions are a natural, instinctive state of mind that comes from circumstance, mood, and relationship to others. These are innate.

Maybe, but if you browse that site I posted, they documented many of the children, after being discovered still did not express human emotions, or at least, not as easily because of their disinterest with interacting with other people at all.

Anyway, I think Eco would come to her senses if she only had a few minutes alone with this guy:

[IndiReloaded]

In regards to Eco, I commend you on your efforts, but you didn't fail from lack of sufficient information. You didn't approach a scientific discussion scientifically -- in that you work to disprove... not prove your claim. It is far easier to disprove something than it is to prove it... and it also keeps you from being led by false hope from the belief that you are right.

I'm not really in teaching mode here, D. I'm in 'appalled at the general public' mode on here. I shouldn't be like this, I know. I really do get pissed at how often a general media write up gets the research wrong. I know most writers don't have any science training, so they should at least send the article back to the PI to make sure they are representing his/her work correctly before publishing. You almost never get to do this, tho, b/c once the paper is published its 'public domain'.

[IndiReloaded]

Maybe, but if you browse that site I posted, they documented many of the children, after being discovered still did not express human emotions, or at least, not as easily because of their disinterest with interacting with other people at all.

Well, again, being the nasty picking science-chick today:

How do you know they don't FEEL the emotions? I might suggest they do, but that they don't SHOW them. Babies smile at their moms naturally (the classic 'i'm cute, feed me' look), and are reinforced to do it more b/c their mom's smile back and feed them.

I'm sure if you poke a 'wild child' with a stick enough, you can get them to snarl at you. That's emotion. Again, nothing to do with morals, tho.

[ecojeanne]

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

[Junket]

Well, again, being the nasty picking science-chick today:

How do you know they don't FEEL the emotions? I might suggest they do, but that they don't SHOW them. Babies smile at their moms naturally (the classic 'i'm cute, feed me' look), and are reinforced to do it more b/c their mom's smile back and feed them.

I'm sure if you poke a 'wild child' with a stick enough, you can get them to snarl at you. That's emotion. Again, nothing to do with morals, tho.

True, I guess how they are expressed is what is taught. They were making links between these isolated individuals and autistic children. Problems socializing with other people is a common problem for them.

[Junket]

wow he really is hot, now i'm distracted. anyway indi i never actualy 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

Sorry, what's that?

You wanted to put this...



Where?

[Aeradalia]

Fras... could you post a cute busty red-head? My instincts need a bit of tweaking too.

[misombra]

sorry eco, you lost the argument.

[Junket]

Fras... could you post a cute busty red-head? My instincts need a bit of tweaking too.

This is the best I could come up with in 30 seconds without going over the line.



For the public record, that big cock is a big cock dildo, notice the sucker on the bottom.

I slide on by on a technicality...

sorry eco, you lost the argument.

Was it the cock or the asian dude?

[Aeradalia]

Close enough Fras...

Any further I'd be in heaven.

[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

Well, this^ is very confusing, Eco. I would say your second sentence actually does say something very similar to your first.

Which 'right and wrongs' are you saying humans inherently know? What is this 'element' you mention?

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.

Got it. Well, all I am saying is that Adam Anderson's paper you posted an article about doesn't support this statement:

we inherently know certain rights and wrongs instinctively

But, surely you understand Miso and Fras's points? That children who grew up w/o role models or in abusive environments (i.e. one lacking 'morals') are more likely to exhibit sociopathic behaviours? I'm not working in this field the way Mis is, but I think it makes sense.

Its actually a good thing morals can be taught. In those cases, early interventions for at-risk children can help. Hence the work of teachers, ministers, social workers, foster parents. Otherwise, we might as well doom these children to their 'inherent' lack of knowing right & wrong and start making up their jail cells now.

Ridiculous in this light, isn't it? I know I'm mixing a few levels of concepts here, but this is the logical extension of saying that knowing 'right & wrong' is innate.

[Mish]

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?

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.