Good Newsweek article

wrote:

In the absense of technology, breastpumps
and formula, it would not be possible for us to be away from our
babies, and we haven't had those for many generations at all, so I do
not see why it is so farfetched to think we may have instincts to stay
with our babies when it was physically necessary not very long ago.

Some women have used wetnurses for centuries, if not millenia.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

wrote:

In the absense of technology, breastpumps
and formula, it would not be possible for us to be away from our
babies, and we haven't had those for many generations at all, so I do
not see why it is so farfetched to think we may have instincts to stay
with our babies when it was physically necessary not very long ago.

Some women have used wetnurses for centuries, if not millenia.

Best wishes,
Ericka


And even if you didn't use a wetnurse, it was not uncommon for women to
nurse babies that weren't theirs. Heck, I did it myself a few times,
and my babies were nursed a few times by other women. It made it easier
to babysit for (or get a babysitter for) babies who were exclusively
nursed and didn't want to take a bottle. It may not be common any more,
and may make some folks feel weird, but there's nothing wrong with it.
There have been times and places where it was much more common.

Then there's all those babies whose mothers died at birth: they would
find another nursing mother to help with the baby. (Nursing two at once
is relatively easy, and there are even mothers of triplets who have
exclusively nursed; I don't know if there are mothers of higher order
multiples who have. But nursing twins was just not difficult.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article dEhSd.13870$4D6.10058@attbi_s51,
"P. Tierney" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps others have said things
like this, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was meaning
anything like this. I have a computer science and engineering degree,
and worked in computers before I changed careers to be with my kids
more. I definitely don't think women are incapable or analytical
thinking.

Oh don't fool yourself. Women most certainly are incapable
of doing such things. I know this for certain.

You see, my sister once pursued a career in the sciences.
It seemed like a good idea, but once she got a job and worked
at it everyday, the tasks required *really* stressed her out. It
made her too thin and unhealthy looking. It didn't work out
at all and we knew that we had to fix it before she went insane.

So, we talked about it, and the reasons for her struggles
was inescapable: Women simply must not have the instincts
for the sciences. We think that it may be because women
are less evolved due to their prehistoric role as the caregiver.

Now, she stays at home and parents, and of course, dabbles
in a bit of charity work with her ladies tea group. It is clear,
from this experience, that her natural role is better for her, and
that she stay away from those things that, through no fault
of her own, she does not have the proper instincts for -- since
she is female.

Some might disagree, but it's really better and easier for
everyone if we do what has been done for millions of years
and let men do the sciences rather than the women.

And by the way, I certainly don't expect anyone to be
offended by such notions. It's just how it is, you know?


P. Tierney



Thanks, P. I needed a good laugh this morning!
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Stephanie Stowe wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
...

Stephanie Stowe wrote:

I volunteered to write it for our agency in this area. They turned me
down! Go figure.

Just now, or at some time in the past?

Emily


At some time in the past. I told them that I thought this was a useful
service, and would write it for them if they wanted. They apparently did not
want it.

That's a real shame. I wonder what would happen if some
just set it up, and people started approaching day care centers
in pairs...

Emily

wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Perhaps you might choose a different word than instinct,
then? Instinct has a particular meaning, especially when you go
on to describe it as a biological imperative. Here are some
definitions:

1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a
species and is often a response to specific environmental

stimuli:

the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social
animals.

That appears to be the definition you were using, given your
discussion of biological/evolutionary issues. This sort of
instinct doesn't vary as you describe in a species. A biological
or evolutionary sort of thing would be much more constant
across the species.

In evolution there is natural variation in the individuals. Each
individual animal is not exactly the same. Evolution occurs because
each individual is different. I take definition 1, but you are
incorrect in saying there is no individual variation.

There's lots of individual variation in some things.
But if you look at the above definition, it says an inborn
pattern of behavior that is CHARACTERISTIC OF A SPECIES.
That doesn't admit a great range of normal for an *instinct*.
If you were using one of the other definitions, then yes,
you would expect a range of individual characteristics.

Because it feels like instinct to me. To resay an earlier point I
think many people think they are deciding more things than they are. I
saw a twin study before where these 2 twins separated at birth ended up
as adults with the same career, the same car and wives that looked
alike.

Ummm...just how common do you think that is? I would
venture that this is quite rare, even among twins who *were*
brought up together.

It is things like this that have made me think many decisions
people think they are reasoning out, they are actually following their
instincts. My brother and I (though not separated at birth) ended up
in the same career, with very similarly looking and acting spouses, and
we both ended up moving out into the woods despite our parents being
raised in a city and us being raised in suburbia.

...and my sister and I (despite being brought up in
the same home) have different careers, different temperaments,
live in different environments, and have quite different
lifestyles. Anecdotes prove very little, and I am unaware of
twin studies that show these sorts of coincidences to be
commonplace. Any set of separated twins might show some
similarities, but I rather doubt that all, or even a significant
fraction of, separated twins share any particular commonality.

Because we were not
separated at birth I am sure you would point to socialization, but me I
am a believer in nature over nurture because of things like the twin
studies I have seen.

I don't think the twin studies in existence have
convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very
important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is
determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know
any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive
in much of any social issues.

Another thing about being biologically wired to want to stay with
babies is that in the absence of breast pumps and formula, it simply is
100% necessary for moms to be with babies, so since for the greatest
part of the evolution into humans and the prehistory and history of
humanity women absolutely had to stay with babies, it makes a ton of
sense that we would be evolved to do so,

Women have used wetnurses for centuries, if not millenia.

and that it might be
uncomfortable for some or most women to be apart from their babies.

It is uncomfortable for a lot of fathers to be apart
from their babies as well (when they are allowed space to
bond as closely), but societal expectations are that they
will suck it up and deal with it.

And really, how many women can say they felt no worry, angst,
unhappiness or uncomfortable feeling at all at least the first time
they had to leave their baby.

I'm sure most felt some level of discomfort. That
doesn't mean that the only or best explanation for this is
biological instinct.

But, like I said above individual variation is the way evolution works.
If an individual has a variation and if they survive and procreate
well with the variation, the variation lives on. If enough individuals
have that variation and survive better than others, that variation
becomes the norm for the species. Everything is subject to variation
including instincts. Instincts are not exactly the same from person to
person or from animal to animal. If some animal or person gets a
variation that doesn't work in some way, then it will not persist.

To the extent that this operates, it does not operate within
the span of a few generations. We didn't suddenly get fewer of
these maternal instincts over the past hundred years.

Some physical variations do not even allow the individual to survive to
adulthood or even survive to birth, so with that kind of variation in
traits, I do not see why you would think there would be no individual
variation in instincts. How would instincts ever evolve if their was
no individual variation?

Something becomes an instinct characteristic of a species
because the competing variations lose out! You say that it is
natural for mothers to have this instinct because millenia of
evolution have required that women stay with their babies. If
that is so, that instinct didn't just disappear in a few hundred
years.

Or way way way more time ago. Yes, I do think the majority of women do
have instincts to stay with their children, just like they did for a
long long long time. But, that totally does not mean they will not
vary in strength from individual to individual, and it does not mean
the instinct will not be absent from some.

Where is all this variation going to come from? Most
research on instinctual behavior is notable for its consistency
from person to person. In fact, it's this consistency that gets
something *defined* as an instinct.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I don't think the twin studies in existence have
convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very
important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is
determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know
any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive
in much of any social issues.

Actually, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is pretty
interesting, and HAS found a way to trace what traits likely have a
strong genetic component. It was conducted by finding many sets of
same-sex twins, some fraternal and some identical, who had been
separated at birth and raised by different families. Then it looked at
various traits, to see if which ones had a higher likelyhood of being
true for both if they were identical instead of fraternal. They have
been able to find a number of things which seem to have a genetic link,
including obesity and addiction -- which are often attributed to
nurture, but it turns out have a strong nature component. In fact,
identical twins are VERY likely to weigh within a few pounds of each
other as adults, while fraternal twins are no more nor less likely than
other siblings. The tendency for addiction to run in families cannot be
broken by having the babies adopted by non-addictive families, since
that tendency is inhereted. Another is that if one identical twin in
gay, the other is most likely gay also, indicating again some genetic
(or at least some congenital) factor. (In the case of males, at least,
there are some studies that indicate a possibility that sexual
orientation may be affected by various hormonal levels during the
pregnancy.)

Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think
those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies
that likely have some genetic component are fascinating.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


I don't think the twin studies in existence have
convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very
important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is
determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know
any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive
in much of any social issues.


Actually, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is pretty
interesting, and HAS found a way to trace what traits likely have a
strong genetic component. It was conducted by finding many sets of
same-sex twins, some fraternal and some identical, who had been
separated at birth and raised by different families. Then it looked at
various traits, to see if which ones had a higher likelyhood of being
true for both if they were identical instead of fraternal. They have
been able to find a number of things which seem to have a genetic link,
including obesity and addiction -- which are often attributed to
nurture, but it turns out have a strong nature component. In fact,
identical twins are VERY likely to weigh within a few pounds of each
other as adults, while fraternal twins are no more nor less likely than
other siblings. The tendency for addiction to run in families cannot be
broken by having the babies adopted by non-addictive families, since
that tendency is inhereted. Another is that if one identical twin in
gay, the other is most likely gay also, indicating again some genetic
(or at least some congenital) factor. (In the case of males, at least,
there are some studies that indicate a possibility that sexual
orientation may be affected by various hormonal levels during the
pregnancy.)

Right...but have they found social behaviors to have
a strong nature component (like the things Kathy mentioned--
career, choice of car, living in city/suburbs/rural areas,
or maternal instincts)?

Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think
those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies
that likely have some genetic component are fascinating.

Oh, I agree, and I think nature has a role to play.
I just have yet to see any evidence that the role of nature is
determinitive in the sorts of social behaviors that have been
under discussion. I think it highly likely that nature plays
a role, but not one that is determinitive by a long stretch.
I do think that research into genetic relationships
and such is absolutely fascinating, and I do think there is
much to be learned. I just think that on balance, social
behavior has more to do with nurture. I also think that
people vastly underestimate the impact of socialization.
Even language is absolutely fundamental to our ability to
interpret the world we live in. Different languages lead
to different understandings. I find that research equally
fascinating.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I don't think the twin studies in existence have
convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very
important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is
determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know
any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive
in much of any social issues.

Actually, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is pretty
interesting, and HAS found a way to trace what traits likely have a
strong genetic component. It was conducted by finding many sets of
same-sex twins, some fraternal and some identical, who had been
separated at birth and raised by different families. Then it looked at
various traits, to see if which ones had a higher likelyhood of being
true for both if they were identical instead of fraternal. They have
been able to find a number of things which seem to have a genetic link,
including obesity and addiction -- which are often attributed to
nurture, but it turns out have a strong nature component. In fact,
identical twins are VERY likely to weigh within a few pounds of each
other as adults, while fraternal twins are no more nor less likely than
other siblings. The tendency for addiction to run in families cannot be
broken by having the babies adopted by non-addictive families, since
that tendency is inhereted. Another is that if one identical twin in
gay, the other is most likely gay also, indicating again some genetic
(or at least some congenital) factor. (In the case of males, at least,
there are some studies that indicate a possibility that sexual
orientation may be affected by various hormonal levels during the
pregnancy.)

Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think
those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies
that likely have some genetic component are fascinating.

Right.

But this goes to temprament, not 'instinct'.

Banty

In article ,
Banty wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I don't think the twin studies in existence have
convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very
important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but
I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is
determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know
any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive
in much of any social issues.

Actually, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is pretty
interesting, and HAS found a way to trace what traits likely have a
strong genetic component. It was conducted by finding many sets of
same-sex twins, some fraternal and some identical, who had been
separated at birth and raised by different families. Then it looked at
various traits, to see if which ones had a higher likelyhood of being
true for both if they were identical instead of fraternal. They have
been able to find a number of things which seem to have a genetic link,
including obesity and addiction -- which are often attributed to
nurture, but it turns out have a strong nature component. In fact,
identical twins are VERY likely to weigh within a few pounds of each
other as adults, while fraternal twins are no more nor less likely than
other siblings. The tendency for addiction to run in families cannot be
broken by having the babies adopted by non-addictive families, since
that tendency is inhereted. Another is that if one identical twin in
gay, the other is most likely gay also, indicating again some genetic
(or at least some congenital) factor. (In the case of males, at least,
there are some studies that indicate a possibility that sexual
orientation may be affected by various hormonal levels during the
pregnancy.)

Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think
those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies
that likely have some genetic component are fascinating.

Right.

But this goes to temprament, not 'instinct'.

Banty


Absolutely -- this is just a bit of thread drift, into a subject area
with which I am fascinated.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Right...but have they found social behaviors to have
a strong nature component (like the things Kathy mentioned--
career, choice of car, living in city/suburbs/rural areas,
or maternal instincts)?


Indirectly only. Things like personality traits (introvert/extrovert,
for example) as well as types of intelligence (good in music, good in
math, good with languages) tend to have a strong genetic component, and
those things effect career choices, so there are more similarities.
Level of comfort with risk also appears to have a strong genetic
component, and that may effect the type of car one chooses.

The sorts of anecdotal stuff where they find twins raised apart who have
partners with the same name, however, are just anecdotes: they may be
fun stories, but that's all they are.

Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think
those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies
that likely have some genetic component are fascinating.

Oh, I agree, and I think nature has a role to play.
I just have yet to see any evidence that the role of nature is
determinitive in the sorts of social behaviors that have been
under discussion. I think it highly likely that nature plays
a role, but not one that is determinitive by a long stretch.
I do think that research into genetic relationships
and such is absolutely fascinating, and I do think there is
much to be learned. I just think that on balance, social
behavior has more to do with nurture. I also think that
people vastly underestimate the impact of socialization.
Even language is absolutely fundamental to our ability to
interpret the world we live in. Different languages lead
to different understandings. I find that research equally
fascinating.

Absolutely! I am not a linguist, but some of the stuff I've read that
deals with the way language affects thinking has been fascinating.
This turns out to be true for different languages, but even for how we
use our own language: working on using gender neutral language, or
gay-friendly language, can actually change our own perceptions. For
example, in most of my life, I refer to the person with whom I share my
life as my "partner", and I NEVER ask someone if they are married or
have a husband or wife: I may ask if they are dating anyone, or if they
are in a relationship, or if they have a partner, but I don't assume
gender. I believe my committment to this language has helped me along
the way to changed perceptions.

In fact, I'm not always comfortable here referring to "DH", and have
considered always referring to him as my partner; I've wondered if it
would just confuse people too much! In the circles in which I travel,
it is common enough that it doesn't often raise any questions.

(The only exception is my very-right-wing fundamentalist Christian
brother, who is annoyed that I place his relationship with his wife on
the same footing as the relationship between my sister and her opposite
sex partner, who have two kids and are in a committed relationship but
declined to get married until very recently, or my brother and his same
sex partner, who have been in a committed relationship for over 15 years
-- and recently got legally married in Mass, by the way.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care