If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Behavior and attitude of modern teens, particularly girls
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Rowley wrote: Bob LeChevalier wrote: snippage At the risk of spoiling this little argument, Yawn, it has been getting a bit stale anyway. Martin --------------------- Oh well, if I'm boring you... No - it's more the discussion, it's gotten to be a bit circular don't you think - with you basically saying "Uh huh" and me saying "Un Un" ad infinitum. I'm not going to change my mind and yours seem pretty set too. Martin Steve |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Behavior and attitude of modern teens, particularly girls
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote: At the risk of spoiling this little argument, there is evidence that biology has built into us an imperfect biological incest taboo that makes sexual attraction between siblings much less likely. The Westermarck Effect, ------------------ Previously discussed and dismissed, this thread. It's simply not a very isolatable phenomenon. The Israeli Kibbutzim saw it, but they had all sorts of dishonoring childrearing practices, simple humiliation together could breed that contempt! Anyway, it just is NOT shown that we have an anti-incest reflex, or there would never have ever had to be any incest taboos and laws, they would be unneeed!! That does not follow. Many biological tendencies are not absolute, but are environmentally triggered. Sometimes the trigger fails. Evolution tends not to make failsafe systems, because the most failsafe ones (like keeping your heart beating for many years) have to use lots of resources to ensure that they don't fail. Since incestuous offspring are not always fatal, there would not be sufficient evolutionary pressure to make a biological incest taboo failsafe, or even necessarily robust. (Indeed, there are circumstances where survival might necessitate overriding the incest taboo - as when only your close relatives have survived a disaster). That proves the effect is trivial or mistaken. No. It is consistent with the fact that incestuous offspring have considerable likelihood to be disadvantaged, but aren't absolutely counter to survival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology) ------------------------ Except that humans have no documentable "imprinting" phenomenon. Of course we do. That's how we learn our native language. The "womb-learning" theory has been discredited by experiment. So? Since Islam considers literacy to be an individual religious obligation, I question Steve's assertion. --------------------------- And do you actually believe that the Taliban are in any meaningful sense, "literate"??? If they can read and write, they are "literate". That is the definition of the term. As far as I am concerned, that is the ONLY definition of the term. Any other sense is not correct, even if "meaningful" (I am one of those who considers "functional literacy" to be a misuse of the word). lojbab |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Behavior and attitude of modern teens, particularly girls
Rowley wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote: Oh well, if I'm boring you... No - it's more the discussion, it's gotten to be a bit circular don't you think - with you basically saying "Uh huh" and me saying "Un Un" ad infinitum. I'm not going to change my mind and yours seem pretty set too. Martin ------------------- We're not merely contradicting one another, we're explaining our reasons for what we believe. If you don't think your beliefs are actually logically supportable, well then you can withdraw if you want. Steve |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Behavior and attitude of modern teens, particularly girls
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: Bob LeChevalier wrote: At the risk of spoiling this little argument, there is evidence that biology has built into us an imperfect biological incest taboo that makes sexual attraction between siblings much less likely. The Westermarck Effect, ------------------ Previously discussed and dismissed, this thread. It's simply not a very isolatable phenomenon. The Israeli Kibbutzim saw it, but they had all sorts of dishonoring childrearing practices, simple humiliation together could breed that contempt! Anyway, it just is NOT shown that we have an anti-incest reflex, or there would never have ever had to be any incest taboos and laws, they would be unneeed!! That does not follow. Many biological tendencies are not absolute, but are environmentally triggered. ------------------- Well, "triggered" makes them sound almost autonomic, when they are not at all, and they are not even evolved, and just make situational sense. Sometimes the trigger fails. ------------------- You have to distinguish between lower animal "instinct" and cognitive human response based on motivation. If there is no reason for kids in the same household not to have sex, and there aren't any or else we would never even HAVE laws against incest, or parental efforts to suppress it, then you'll need to look for other reasons in the case of the Kibbutzim children, because other sibling groups DO play around sexually. Now if you're claiming that they avoided marrying, admitted, but while that may be true, it must be distinguished from whether they are sexually interested in one another versus whether they saw each other as marriage material. If their culture had a strong taboo against incest, and Judaism does, then the taboo would translate into the adults trying to prevent the kids from sex with each other early on, that is, it would inculcate in the children the awareness of the parental disapproval of that sexuality, even if the parents would have been glad to see them mate as adults, and that cannot be dismissed as an influence! But also, the dynamics of the Kibbutz movement are different than most, and if the kids didn't LIKE being an experiment, like the Kibbutzim children were, sociologically, then they would seek a mate elsewhere, intentionally intending to leave Kibbutz life, which was typically frontier and isolated from city culture and all the things that attract young people going out to found their own lives. This is undoubtedly seen in small towns where we know most children do NOT remain in the isolated town of their parents, and they seem to avoid marrying into the community of their origin, simply because the prospect of another 50 years of that environment sounds obnoxious and annoying to them. Now you can see this as some kind of exogamy instinct, or you can see this as plain old good sense on the part of a kid who wants more advanture in their life. THAT story is as old as Luke Skywalker. Evolution tends not to make failsafe systems, because the most failsafe ones (like keeping your heart beating for many years) have to use lots of resources to ensure that they don't fail. ------------------------ Sure, admitted, but you have to remember, we have NEVER detected the activity of ANY instinct in the human that was not a simple reflex, like the rooting reflex, and that instinct for higher behaviors is only seen in lower mammals where there can be no complex cognitive motivation of the sophistication required to form such complicated behaviors. If we have any such they are totally subsumed, overwhelmed and voided by our cognitive motivational facility. Since incestuous offspring are not always fatal, there would not be sufficient evolutionary pressure to make a biological incest taboo failsafe, or even necessarily robust. (Indeed, there are circumstances where survival might necessitate overriding the incest taboo - as when only your close relatives have survived a disaster). ------------------- What you say is correct, but still, we do NOT see human behaviors that are both instinctive AND so behaviorally complex. There are notions that we respond to pheromones, but again, no evidence that they ever block sexual behavior, only that they stimulate it. The human pheromones that HAVE been detected are the same from person to person, by sex, and are not different enough to use for the avoidance of sex with parents or siblings. Smell may be related in some way, but even that is not evidenced, it is merely hypothesized. That proves the effect is trivial or mistaken. No. It is consistent with the fact that incestuous offspring have considerable likelihood to be disadvantaged, but aren't absolutely counter to survival. ----------------------------- While that is true, it is not something that costs us much. Defective young before modern times were simply killed. And while the pregnancy was a cost, it is specious how a reflex could learn to avoid it without avoiding sex or conception generally! People smell alike a lot, they don't differ that much, and people don't actually have a hell of a lot of choice who they breed with! Mostly, people marry whoever says yes after they have both become so desperate for a reliable source of sex and affectiion that they will settle for whoever is handy and amenable! It's not like we get to sort through the whole bunch and get the one we want the most! Your asking for far too much complexity in a simple reflex. It is simply not seen in other "instincts". Squirrels bury nuts, but it is shown that they cannot remember where they are, they have to smell them in the ground! They aren't planning and remembering. And birds that migrate are now shown to be quite inaccurate where they wind up, they do NOT mate with the same partner as used to be thought, and they do NOT come back to the same nest year after year. And this is sensible, a mate can die, and individuals can get lost on the flyways. It would be stupid to based reproduction on mere fortune! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology) ------------------------ Except that humans have no documentable "imprinting" phenomenon. Of course we do. That's how we learn our native language. -------------------------------- Yes, we learn to make and hear certain sounds, but we are not limited to them if we learn enough of them early on. The requirement to learn some foundational skill early doesn't mean that we are "imprinting" like a baby duck. And baby ducks have long been known to follow practically anything, doesn't sound so bright to me! Much of this crap is merely pop predjudice and an effort to ascribe purpose to Nature to support and fraudulently backstop religious notions. The "womb-learning" theory has been discredited by experiment. So? --------------------------- One more "imprinting" type notion that doesn't withstand examination. Since Islam considers literacy to be an individual religious obligation, I question Steve's assertion. --------------------------- And do you actually believe that the Taliban are in any meaningful sense, "literate"??? If they can read and write, they are "literate". That is the definition of the term. As far as I am concerned, that is the ONLY definition of the term. -------------------------- If you teach a child to recite a child's book from memory, and they know it by heart, when they do so with the book in front of them as a prompt to memory, are they "reading", or not? Any other sense is not correct, even if "meaningful" (I am one of those who considers "functional literacy" to be a misuse of the word). lojbab ------------------------------ If someone "only" learns to read the bible, everything either looks like the bible, or it looks like the devil. That isn't literacy in any meaningful sense. Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Youtube soft porn made by teens for teens | Greegor | Spanking | 30 | November 25th 06 03:25 AM |
same as "bad attitude", but different | jojo | General | 36 | May 14th 05 06:15 PM |
Bad Attitude! | Chookie | General | 1 | May 10th 05 03:24 PM |
| Attitude Problems | Kane | Solutions | 0 | August 25th 03 06:17 PM |