Good Newsweek article

wrote in message
oups.com...
The problem is that you keep attributing this to instinct,

This is really the crux of our disagreement. You do not seem to
believe that people have instincts and I believe they are primarily
driven by them. I think we could argue all year long and never settle
it because we are never going to agree on this.

This is a crutch being used to avoid the finer points of the
discussion. I've seen no one claim that people don't have
instincts. Rather, the idea that "people have instincts in some
cases, so I'm going to assume that they do in this case" without
any sort of support is the notion that is being rightly questioned.



P.
Tierney

I didn't say people didn't have instincts. I said that
they play a very minor role in this compared to experience
and socialization. If you believe it to be biological instinct,
how do you explain cultural variation?


People can ignore their instincts, like I did for 3 years while I
worked rather than being with my dd, and like the guy who always waited
until the end of his meal to drink even if he was thirsty. Deciding
not to do what your instincts tell you to do does not mean the
instincts are not there. People frequently ignore their instincts
about dangerous people because they are afraid of looking odd. Plus,
as I already said, I am sure instinct like all things varies from
person to person.

I would say when you live in different places around different people,
you would need to behave differently to get along. That would be
cultural variation, but it would not change your instincts for things.
You may decide to go against your instinct to fit in with a culture, or
because that is really the best option you can do under the
circumstances, but it will not necessarily change your gut feeling
about the situation.

And going back to my original point, I was talking about how it made my
dh and I feel bad to switch roles. For me it made me feel bad on a
very gut level which I think was from me going against my instincts
(cause I am really not too worried at this point in my life about
following social norms :-), but if anybody wants to think I was feeling
bad due to violating some social norm, feel free :-)


KC

In article .com,
wrote:

The problem is that you keep attributing this to instinct,

This is really the crux of our disagreement. You do not seem to
believe that people have instincts and I believe they are primarily
driven by them. I think we could argue all year long and never settle
it because we are never going to agree on this.

KC


Probably not.

Do you understand that the way you talk about it appears to insult many
of us, implying that either we are lacking in maternal instinct, or that
we are ignoring the instincts which should drive us?

You may believe that you are not insulting us, but the language you use
IS insulting.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article .com,
wrote:

And going back to my original point, I was talking about how it made my
dh and I feel bad to switch roles. For me it made me feel bad on a
very gut level which I think was from me going against my instincts
(cause I am really not too worried at this point in my life about
following social norms :-), but if anybody wants to think I was feeling
bad due to violating some social norm, feel free :-)


KC

You really don't get it.

No one is saying your family should have been happy with Dad at home and
Mom at work. You weren't. So you found a way to change that, and now
you are at home (and, though you haven't said so, presumably Dad is at
work.) That's fine. Frankly, WHY you felt bad is irrelevant: you did.

My problem is with your belief that EVERY mother who works ought to feel
bad, and if she doesn't, she is lacking in maternal instincts, thus
stating that YOUR way is the best way for "proper" mothers.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

wrote:

I didn't say people didn't have instincts. I said that
they play a very minor role in this compared to experience
and socialization. If you believe it to be biological instinct,
how do you explain cultural variation?



People can ignore their instincts, like I did for 3 years while I
worked rather than being with my dd, and like the guy who always waited
until the end of his meal to drink even if he was thirsty. Deciding
not to do what your instincts tell you to do does not mean the
instincts are not there. People frequently ignore their instincts
about dangerous people because they are afraid of looking odd. Plus,
as I already said, I am sure instinct like all things varies from
person to person.

But, for instance, how do you explain that when
societal variables change, the number of women who choose
SAHM vs. WOHM change? I think it strains credulity to
imagine that there are changes in instincts that just happen
to coincide with other social factors.

I would say when you live in different places around different people,
you would need to behave differently to get along. That would be
cultural variation, but it would not change your instincts for things.
You may decide to go against your instinct to fit in with a culture, or
because that is really the best option you can do under the
circumstances, but it will not necessarily change your gut feeling
about the situation.

But when societal variables change *within the same culture*,
the SAHM vs. WOHM mix changes--thus implying that something other
than instinct (which is, by definition, relatively constant) is
the thing that makes more of a difference.

And going back to my original point, I was talking about how it made my
dh and I feel bad to switch roles. For me it made me feel bad on a
very gut level which I think was from me going against my instincts
(cause I am really not too worried at this point in my life about
following social norms :-), but if anybody wants to think I was feeling
bad due to violating some social norm, feel free :-)

No, that's not what it is about. I don't think anyone
doubts that *YOU* felt bad doing what you did, and you can
attribute it to anything personal that you like. But to attribute
it to something global like instinct (and to explain variation
by saying that some folks are just deficient in the instinct
category) takes it far beyond the realm of the personal (and
frankly, it flirts with something in the realm of insult).
Really, if there is such a thing as biological instinct operating
at this level, it makes utterly no sense to on the one hand
insist it's a biological imperative and on the other admit
a great deal of variation in the same gene pool. It just doesn't
work that way. If there were that much variation in the gene
pool, those instincts would have been washed away years ago.
However, I think it's also very misleading to imagine
that you are outside social norms. *EVERYONE* is affected
by socialization, and at an extremely deep level. Without it,
we can't make sense of our social world. It's not just a
matter of being above peer pressure or some such thing that
is relatively easily ignored. It's not just the stuff you'll
find in an etiquette book. Socialization exists at a level
as deep as language and the fundamental ways we think about
our world and our place in it, and we all have lots and lots
of unexamined assumptions based on our socialization--even
those who pride themselves on their ability to be introspective
and call some of these assumptions into the foreground for
consideration. If you had to think consciously about the
zillions of things you do every day that are affected by
your socialization, you'd be crippled. So, to attribute
something like this to socialization rather than to instinct
isn't to make light of it or to deny it's importance to you.
It does, however, prove less insulting to those who were
socialized differently or who chose a different path despite
their socialization.

Best wishes,
Ericka

toto wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:31:07 GMT, "P. Tierney"
wrote:

Proper preparation for baseball involves loads of cardiovascular
exercise. That's at the higher levels, anyway. I'm not sure how
much pregame exercise is done with children in practices at
the Little League level, or even how much they practice.

I think it depends on the age, the area and the particular leaque,
but mostly, I haven't seen kids doing much in the way of training
until high school.

I have four grandchildren in various phases of little league. They
practices where they do skills, and in addition they do some running.
The oldest one has (and has had for some time) additional coaching
outside of the actual practices.

The youngest one (who is 5 and is playing at the first grade
level-coach pitch where almost all the kids are 2 years older) has
practice once or twice a week and a game twice a week. The oldest one
has practice once a week, batting practice, pitching practice, and has
as many as 3 games a week. This is in Florida where they play year
round. I think Florida and California (and to a certain extent Texas)
are the big hotbeds of little league.

Soccer has more actual aerobic exercise and so does swimming.


grandma Rosalie

Banty wrote:
In article .com, Melania
says...

There's been the odd time I've come home incensed over something
someone said to me about my child, or insinuated about my parenting,
and relayed it to to dh, who responded, "That's not an insult. Or even
a criticism. You're just assuming it is." Doesn't happen very often,
but it's a wake-up for me that the problem was likely that I was
already feeling sensitive or uncertain, and then turned a (likely
innocent) comment into an attack.

Yes - definately something to consider. I had my sister mad at me for *years*
because I told her about her house "oh I would have painted it blue". (That's
all I meant - I didn't mean 'you're stupid for painting it yellow with brown
shutters', it's just that I picured it blue. )

I'm going to have to work on this - dh is getting very irritated at me
- of course now we are together 24/7 (retired and traveling) and I
think he needs some time off, but every comment I make he takes as a
criticism, and mostly it is REALLY just an observation.

Even opinions stated in a more openly judgemental way are meant often less
strictly judgemental by the speaker. I remember in more touchy days getting
irrritated at people saying "You want to....", before I came to my senses and
realized all they really mean is "It's usually good to...."

And I take the English folks' word on it that ".... don't you think." does *not*
mean "if you only took a moment to think about it, you would have agreed with
me." ;-)

Even true judgements, judgementally spoken, are often passing. Some people are
just more outspoken. Some just lack any inhibiting factor between brain and
mouth, and may express a different opinion the next day.

Cheers,
Banty (Whaddaya MEAN, "You want to...", only *I* know what I WANT!!)


grandma Rosalie

toto wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:18:26 -0500, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:


wrote:


The problem is that you keep attributing this to instinct,

This is really the crux of our disagreement. You do not seem to
believe that people have instincts

I didn't say people didn't have instincts. I said that
they play a very minor role in this compared to experience
and socialization. If you believe it to be biological instinct,
how do you explain cultural variation?


Interestingly, there is a book that talks about some of this
in regard to an instinct to nurture.

http://www.henryholt.com/holt/tendinginstinct.htm

While I do believe that men and women can certainly take on
the other's roles, it seems that studying men and women can
give different conclusions about things like stress.

Sure, there are lots of interesting things out
there, including this work. I also don't dispute that
men and women can tend to be wired differently. But it's
easy to make too much of these things, and it's also easy
to attribute too much to biology. For instance, there have
been studies of men as primary caregivers for children
(shamefully few, but there are some) that when *allowed*,
men do a whole lot of things that look an awful lot
like the nurturing women do. They respond quickly and
appropriately to their babies' cries, and their physiologic
responses to baby's cries were similar to women's (aside
from letdowns, of course ;-) They bond to their babies.
Yes, they often do things somewhat *differently*, but
they are every bit as bonded to their babies and every
bit as capable of nurturing them (aside from being able
to provide breastmilk) as women--though lots of things
often get in the way of men bonding and nurturing in
this way because of social beliefs about how men and
babies (and fathers and mother) ought to be interacting.

Similarly, although we know there are some
differences between men's and women's brains, I think
it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited
to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number
of other things that have been said.

Best wishes,
Ericka

My problem is with your belief that EVERY mother who works ought to
feel
bad, and if she doesn't, she is lacking in maternal instincts, thus
stating that YOUR way is the best way for "proper" mothers.


Nope, I said I thought the majority wouldn't like it. And I never said
anybody was lacking in maternal instinct, just that we had varying
amounts, but that all were acceptable as long as children survived.

KC

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
wrote:

I didn't say people didn't have instincts. I said that
they play a very minor role in this compared to experience
and socialization. If you believe it to be biological instinct,
how do you explain cultural variation?



People can ignore their instincts, like I did for 3 years while I
worked rather than being with my dd, and like the guy who always
waited
until the end of his meal to drink even if he was thirsty.
Deciding
not to do what your instincts tell you to do does not mean the
instincts are not there. People frequently ignore their instincts
about dangerous people because they are afraid of looking odd.
Plus,
as I already said, I am sure instinct like all things varies from
person to person.

But, for instance, how do you explain that when
societal variables change, the number of women who choose
SAHM vs. WOHM change?

I don't really understand you question because I feel like I would just
be repeating what was said above to answer.


I think it strains credulity to
imagine that there are changes in instincts that just happen
to coincide with other social factors.

No, instincts don't change. People do not have to follow their
instincts.



I would say when you live in different places around different
people,
you would need to behave differently to get along. That would be
cultural variation, but it would not change your instincts for
things.
You may decide to go against your instinct to fit in with a
culture, or
because that is really the best option you can do under the
circumstances, but it will not necessarily change your gut feeling
about the situation.

But when societal variables change *within the same culture*,
the SAHM vs. WOHM mix changes--thus implying that something other
than instinct (which is, by definition, relatively constant) is
the thing that makes more of a difference.

When more women started WOH in the 70s and later, both the women's
movement and a recession were going on. Financial need would make more
women have to do what made them uncomfortable. Then, when times
improved in the 90s, more women who could afford to not work started
being SAHM again. It is hard to pin the movement of women into the
workforce on social changes when economic changes were happening
simultaneously. Perhaps you have other examples.



And going back to my original point, I was talking about how it
made my
dh and I feel bad to switch roles. For me it made me feel bad on a
very gut level which I think was from me going against my instincts
(cause I am really not too worried at this point in my life about
following social norms :-), but if anybody wants to think I was
feeling
bad due to violating some social norm, feel free :-)

No, that's not what it is about. I don't think anyone
doubts that *YOU* felt bad doing what you did, and you can
attribute it to anything personal that you like. But to attribute
it to something global like instinct (and to explain variation
by saying that some folks are just deficient in the instinct
category) takes it far beyond the realm of the personal (and
frankly, it flirts with something in the realm of insult).

That's what I really don't get. I never meant it as an insult. I just
knew it made me feel bad in a very gut way, and when I have those very
gut feelings, that is what I think of as my instinct. I just assume
not everyone feels that way, so there is the varying instinct. I am
very sorry anyone got offended by that.


Really, if there is such a thing as biological instinct operating
at this level, it makes utterly no sense to on the one hand
insist it's a biological imperative and on the other admit
a great deal of variation in the same gene pool. It just doesn't
work that way. If there were that much variation in the gene
pool, those instincts would have been washed away years ago.

I don't see why.

However, I think it's also very misleading to imagine
that you are outside social norms. *EVERYONE* is affected
by socialization, and at an extremely deep level. Without it,
we can't make sense of our social world. It's not just a
matter of being above peer pressure or some such thing that
is relatively easily ignored. It's not just the stuff you'll
find in an etiquette book. Socialization exists at a level
as deep as language and the fundamental ways we think about
our world and our place in it, and we all have lots and lots
of unexamined assumptions based on our socialization--even
those who pride themselves on their ability to be introspective
and call some of these assumptions into the foreground for
consideration. If you had to think consciously about the
zillions of things you do every day that are affected by
your socialization, you'd be crippled.

Lol, I am crippled, but in my feet :-)

So, to attribute
something like this to socialization rather than to instinct
isn't to make light of it or to deny it's importance to you.
It does, however, prove less insulting to those who were
socialized differently or who chose a different path despite
their socialization.




Sorry anyone is insulted by me thinking that people have maternal
instincts that make them want to stay with their babies.

KC