AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 The overwhelming reason for people being treated as if they are inferior is because they are inferior. Alec - to point out the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Lexia Moonstone wrote: Only A Confederacy of Dunces would think this rally is going to help save the considerate flag. It's the perfect proof of why it needs to come down. I love a measured and well-presented argument. Alec - pointing out when it's not the case too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madman626 Fall Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 That out a out rage wait a min, that not a Confederate Battle Flag hmmmm i guess that Flag a raceist too, point is if you want get rid of one flag for been a racist symbol you need to get rid of them both, i dont see them has a racist Symbol and i never will and yes i fly both flag why my family fight on both side north and south for me it not a matter of lost or who win it about remembering family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: irihapeti wrote: there are any number of reasons, and ways, for how a person becomes the first teacher hate, envy, lust, avarice, to name some And still I strongly believe there is something far more fundamental, an instinct, not affected by reason or experience. Racism can be triggered by all the examples you gave, but in no way do I think it explains the "seed" I was talking about earlier. about superiority after an act of enslavement this form of superiority comes with hierarchy (is not the same thing as a belief of superiority. Is a real thing) Enslaved or employed. Ill-treated or well-treated. There is a boss in a hierarchy a hierachial boss whos orders we are compelled to follow, or suffer the consequences whatever they may be. Heavy for slaves. Light for employees. Somewhere in between for indentured servants They aren't the same, but under certain circumstances, one will lead to the other. ________ On your other post I come back because I do not agree with how you see racism. I think your view that racism is based on anything else than something that's rooted inside everyone of us simply is not true. You give the human kind far too much credit in my opinion by stripping it from all animal instincts. We're not all that rational, which makes us a lot more fun, but also very dangerous. about the first under any circumstance all things lead to other things. So I dunno what is your point + on the second we are quite capable of making irrational choices as we are rational ones. And we do + about the "seed" from this is clear that you have determined that there is a "seed" and you are on a hunt for it. A "seed" that is the root of animal instincts what science shows us is that animals dont actual have instincts. No animal does and never has. Not ever what animals have when born are primal reflexes. The higher up the animal scale (the more intelligence they have) the lesser their primal reflexes. A ape is less primally reflexive at birth than a dog. A mammal is less primally reflexive at birth than a reptile , etc science shows us that the primal reflexes of newborn humans are: To breathe. To root and suckle. To startle at loud noises. To move, and to try to walk. To cry when discomforted. To sleep. And thats it. Within a few months these purely primal reflexive actions disappear as the baby learns to control its own body + so if it is not biological (and it isnt) and is not learning/conditioning (which it is) then there is nothing left as a site for this "seed", except out of body. Universal truths ? god ? metaphysics ? is pretty seductive tho the idea that there might be something outside of us that causes us to do bad. Like it wasnt my fault, Satan made me do it is nonsense this idea even more seductive is the idea that all our behaviours are in us. That they are genetic in origin. Be pretty good that for them into bad things. Am sorry your Honour, but I cant be held accountable for murdering all them people. I am genetically-wired to be in fear of my life from them is actual nonsense this as well. Every geneticist who has examined more than just a petri dish in their life, can tell us that it is + seems to me what you have is a belief that there is a "seed". And you cling to it, the belief in its existence is ok that you do. We allowed to believe whatever we want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 irihapeti wrote: what science shows us is that animals dont actual have instincts. No animal does and never has. Not ever what animals have when born are primal reflexes. The higher up the animal scale (the more intelligence they have) the lesser their primal reflexes. A ape is less primally reflexive at birth than a dog. A mammal is less primally reflexive at birth than a reptile , etc Irihapeti, could you point me to something that shows animals don't actually have instincts and never have, ever? Babies prefer looking at faces adults have deemed attractive, They are also more willing to trust pretty people. This isn't learned, they're doing it at two months of age. And it's not learned by adults either, as we agree with the babies. Is this a primal reflex? If so, then your definition of reflex may have no distinction from my definition of instinct. Instinct declines in importance as animal intellect increases, allowing social learning, but we never totally escape it. We like pretty faces (instinct) and fear spiders (learned). Yet babies shown videos of snakes and bunnies while randomly hearing happy or frightened voices will spend more time looking at the snakes if they're hearing frightened voices. This bias helps babies learn fear of snakes quickly. I imagine similar biases help us learn racism quickly. I'm willing to accept that as the "seed" that Kwak mentions. I think we're just plum full of seeds (biases) that we don't yet understand. It's interesting to see researchers tease them out of us. ETA: In David Eagleman's "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain", he cites research that detects a racist bias in virtually everyone tested, including outspoken anti-racists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 irihapeti wrote: about the first under any circumstance all things lead to other things. So I dunno what is your point It's not clear to me what you are responding to with this. But if all things lead to other things, I'd turn it around and say all things have to have an origin. about the "seed" from this is clear that you have determined that there is a "seed" and you are on a hunt for it. A "seed" that is the root of animal instincts what science shows us is that animals dont actual have instincts. No animal does and never has. Not ever what animals have when born are primal reflexes. The higher up the animal scale (the more intelligence they have) the lesser their primal reflexes. A ape is less primally reflexive at birth than a dog. A mammal is less primally reflexive at birth than a reptile , etc science shows us that the primal reflexes of newborn humans are: To breathe. To root and suckle. To startle at loud noises. To move, and to try to walk. To cry when discomforted. To sleep. And thats it. Within a few months these purely primal reflexive actions disappear as the baby learns to control its own body I don't say there is a seed that leads to animal instincts. I say there is animal instinct. The seed is the instinct. I'd like to add that humans are animals. As I said earlier, you are giving the human species far too much credit. Our complex brain steered us into a certain direction in evolution, although it's still a big question if that path is very successful. So far so good I'd say, but the same is the case for every other animal or even every organism alive today. Like Madelaine, I'd like to see how science shows us animal (and therefor human) instinct doesn't exist. There's an entire battery of scientists who will disagree. That last part is beyond me. Within a few months the reflexes you describe disappear? Babies stop breathing, suckling, making noise, stop moving or walking (which babies do not do in the first place), crying, sleeping if they do not decide to keep doing so? is pretty seductive tho the idea that there might be something outside of us that causes us to do bad. Like it wasnt my fault, Satan made me do it is nonsense this idea even more seductive is the idea that all our behaviours are in us. That they are genetic in origin. Be pretty good that for them into bad things. Am sorry your Honour, but I cant be held accountable for murdering all them people. I am genetically-wired to be in fear of my life from them is actual nonsense this as well. Every geneticist who has examined more than just a petri dish in their life, can tell us that it is This isn't the same as human instinct, but the question whether someone can be held responsible for their own actions is a valid one. People aren't all wired the same way. People have urges, beliefs, feelings they cannot control, whether criminal or not. An example: Some (quite a lot even) people are homosexual or have homosexual feelings. You can't be serious if you think people were either raised to be or decided to. Studies also show many criminal's brains are often wired a certain way, which can be seen from a very early age. Luckily people with "a criminal mind" do not always turn out to be criminal. Nonsense as you believe it to be, the question of responsibility is an ongoing debate. Not one between scientists who have and have not surpassed the stage of handling petri dishes btw. No judge will sentence you for believing something, for feeling a certain way. They will sentence you for acting a certain way (could be as little as expressing that belief). The belief does not neccecarily lead to the act, but that doesn't mean the belief isn't there. Even if one couldn't be held responsible for their criminal actions, that wouldn't mean they couldn't be sentenced for them. Incarceration is as much a way to exclude threats from society as it is to punish. I'd like you to consider studies on twins. Identical twins, identical twins separated at an early age and fraternal twins. All studies show that genes play a vital role in how a person turns out in later life. ___ I'll add some confusion by linking this. While the conclusion of the author is that racism might not be innate, I find it striking that the feeling springs to life at the age where there are some large biological changes. Also note that from my first post on, I haven't really made a disctinction between races but between groups. Also note that I do not think racism is innate, it's the instinct of making distinctions between races that can lead to racism that is innate. The fact that people raised among lots of different races do not seem to have the measurable "racist reflex" in the brain, tells me that it's the environment can influence or even override the instinct. The reaction is the biggest when there has been no interaction with other races. Which suggests that the instinct hasn't been influenced at all, giving the "purest" results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Madelaine McMasters wrote: irihapeti wrote: what science shows us is that animals dont actual have instincts. No animal does and never has. Not ever what animals have when born are primal reflexes. The higher up the animal scale (the more intelligence they have) the lesser their primal reflexes. A ape is less primally reflexive at birth than a dog. A mammal is less primally reflexive at birth than a reptile , etc Irihapeti, could you point me to something that shows animals don't actually have instincts and never have, ever? Babies prefer looking at faces adults have deemed attractive, They are also more willing to trust pretty people. This isn't learned, they're doing it at two months of age. And it's not learned by adults either, as we agree with the babies. Is this a primal reflex? If so, then your definition of reflex may have no distinction from my definition of instinct. Instinct declines in importance as animal intellect increases, allowing social learning, but we never totally escape it. We like pretty faces (instinct) and fear spiders (learned). Yet babies shown videos of snakes and bunnies while randomly hearing happy or frightened voices will spend more time looking at the snakes if they're hearing frightened voices. This bias helps babies learn fear of snakes quickly. I imagine similar biases help us learn racism quickly. I'm willing to accept that as the "seed" that Kwak mentions. I think we're just plum full of seeds (biases) that we don't yet understand. It's interesting to see researchers tease them out of us. ETA: In David Eagleman's "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain", he cites research that detects a racist bias in virtually everyone tested, including outspoken anti-racists. you said what I said. you said "2 months". I said "a few months" (: also tho when I say instinct I mean things beyond primal reflex. "reflex" meaning that which is bound by physicality and is measurably present. "instinct" meaning innate knowledge, inherent tendency based on this innateness sometimes people will say: but arent these the same thing ? I am just define them this way so that can see there is a distinction. A real one. They not the same thing + when a animal is born it does things reflexively. Like a baby giraffe for example. He tries to move, he tries to get up on his feet as soon as he is born. Human babies do this as well. As soon as they are born, the second thing they do after taking a breath, is try to stand. They step their feet. They keep trying to do this for some weeks. Then they learn 1) that they are not yet physically capable of this and 2) that they dont have to bc their Mum doesnt insist on it. A baby giraffe tho has to stand, his Mum insists that he does, and he the baby giraffe, is actual physically capable of doing this. So he gets up has been similar experiments done on birds. Like a baby bird is raised in isolation. Never sees another bird. And his wings bound so he cant waggle them. Then when he is physically big enough to fly is taken outside and the bounds removed. The bird looks and then waggles his wings. Then he waggles them some more and then flys off a person watching this goes: oh! wow birds have a race memory of flying. The scientist conducting the experiment goes: well! is more simple than that. The bird flys bc it can physically do this. Same way a antelope runs. It runs bc it can. like physically. It doesnt think: I am antelope therefore I run. Same the bird can also see why kittens arch their backs and hiss. They do it bc they can. And depending on the response they get then they do it again. Same pretty much any other animal. They do what they do bc they can physically do it + a newborn lamb taken at moment of birth will not freak out, it wont try to get away. It will actual move towards you. Or any other presence that it detects. It will move toward a wolf or fox even. Is same true this of human babies when a infant human baby can see (or smell/hear when it still cant see), and is exposed to another creature (human or otherwise) it has never confronted before (or anything similar) it doesnt immediately freak out. The first response is puzzlement. What is that thing? then it goes thru its current understandings trying to associate what that is, with what it has previous learned. If it associates it with something it knows and that something is important to it, then it responds physically. The flee/fight thing kicks in when it does associates the thing with a known threat. If it associates the thing with food then it roots, moves/reaches toward it this is a important bit. The chemical reaction of flight/flee, and subsequent physical action/response doesnt kick in, until after the infant animal brain has processed what that thing is or might be, sans any instruction/indication from its parent or other animal in proximity. When the brain doesnt associate it with self-preservation: with anything threatening, or associate it as a potential source of food, or as a object of interest in itself, then the infant doesnt do anything. It just carries on doing whatever it was doing + mammal animals have the 5 senses highly tuned to detect change in their environment. Human babies are highly tuned in these well then as they learn, they work out which of these senses are important to them. Humans discard smell as relatively unimportant. Dogs do not. Same as they do with what they know/learn of, and from, everything around them. Humans, dogs, animals, etc. What they recognise as unimportant to them they discard and is here were everything happens. Is not a seed (like some vessel containing knowledge). Is a process the heart of it is that in addition to learning (which we focus on a lot study-wise in infants and children). a human being (and animals in general) discards what is unimportant to itself, its own survival. The more intelligence the animal has the more knowledge/learning it discards as unimportant to itself (something we dont focus on much at all in infants and children. relative study-wise) is hardly any studies at all on what infants and children do discard and what the effects of this are example: My son is racist bc I taught him to be. Is true I did and I am the major catalyst here. Is not the whole story tho. My son also discarded empathy for the target, bc he recognised that this empathy was unimportant to himself, his own survival, so he discarded it the realisation that young children are not only capable of this and do do it, as a consequence of a purely physical process, kinda freaks quite a few people out eta; not the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 ok, we now agree pretty much on this as well I think the "seed" is not a thing (like a vessel, a container) + i made a reply to Maddie about what it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 irihapeti wrote: ok, we now agree pretty much on this as well I think the "seed" is not a thing (like a vessel, a container) By everything you and I said, I highly doubt so, but I'm more than happy to leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1 Nightfire Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 irihapeti wrote: mammal animals have the 5 senses highly tuned to detect change in their environment. Human babies are highly tuned in these well Scientists have changed that recently, they now state we have dozens of senses that help us do things in everyday life. then as they learn, they work out which of these senses are important to them. Humans discard smell as relatively unimportant. Dogs do not. Same as they do with what they know/learn of, and from, everything around them. Humans, dogs, animals, etc. What they recognise as unimportant to them they discard Wrong, humans do not discard any of their senses. Why do you think we recognise the smell of smoke as a bad thing? Instinct. and is here were everything happens. Is not a seed (like some vessel containing knowledge). Is a process Every creature on this planet has some degree of instinctual knowledge. the heart of it is that in addition to learning (which we focus on a lot study-wise in infants and children). a human being (and animals in general) discards what is unimportant to itself, its own survival. The more intelligence the animal has the more knowledge/learning it discards as unimportant to itself (something we dont focus on much at all in infants and children. relative study-wise) Again, that is false information. is hardly any studies at all on what infants and children do discard and what the effects of this are Bull. there have been hundreds of studies on what babies instinctually know. example: My son is racist bc I taught him to be. Is true I did and I am the major catalyst here. Is not the whole story tho. My son also discarded empathy for the target, bc he recognised that this empathy was unimportant to himself, his own survival, so he discarded it That has nothing to do with instinct, that is social behaviour. the realisation that young children are not only capable of this and do do it, as a consequence of a purely physical process, kinda freaks quite a few people out Young children are not and do not show any signs of racism. Racism is a taught behaviour. You are mixing apples and potatoes here, not even two fruits. Social behaviour is completely different from instinctual behaviour. There have been studies that show dolphins will shun a member of their pod that has differing color markings. Primates will do the same. eta; not the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Madelaine McMasters wrote: babies shown videos of snakes and bunnies while randomly hearing happy or frightened voices will spend more time looking at the snakes if they're hearing frightened voices. This bias helps babies learn fear of snakes quickly. i just want to pick up on this part specifically is quite a number of these kinda experiments been done Sandra Waxman is a pretty well recognised authority in this field. She has done similiar experiments http://www.psychology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/core/profiles/sandra-waxman.html one experiment her team did was. the lemur sounds experiment what they discovered was that [some] infants as young as 3 months responded positively to lemur calls in the experiment however what they also found was that by the time they were 6 months old [all] the infants had discarded what they learned. That the lemurs were unimportant to them, and they just ignored the lemurs after that the study paper is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/38/15231 eta: i add in [some] bc it was only some who repsonded but [all] discarded it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 read the paper I linked to Maddie ok and then reconsider what I wrote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: irihapeti wrote: ok, we now agree pretty much on this as well I think the "seed" is not a thing (like a vessel, a container) By everything you and I said, I highly doubt so, but I'm more than happy to leave it at that. true (: altho all thru this I have been restrain myself. Not on the topic tho on your tagline how you ever considered why Confucious never questions the predicate on which his definition rests? he proceeds on the assumption / predicate that superiority/inferiority is a given why is that? (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Believe me I have glanced over that Confucius tag many times during this discussion. I don't know if he ever questioned that statement, nor do I think he takes the superiority as a given. It's a superiority based on choices made by people. I can understand the urge to "sell", but that shouldn't stop people from doing the "right" thing. I don't like people who are making a quick (selfish) decision without considering the consequences. When I adopted that tag, I was fairly active in the creation fora, trying to educate people on how to build responsibly in SL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I'll add some confusion by linking this. While the conclusion of the author is that racism might not be innate, I find it striking that the feeling springs to life at the age where there are some large biological changes. Also note that from my first post on, I haven't really made a disctinction between races but between groups. Also note that I do not think racism is innate, it's the instinct of making distinctions between races that can lead to racism that is innate. The fact that people raised among lots of different races do not seem to have the measurable "racist reflex" in the brain, tells me that it's the environment can influence or even override the instinct. The reaction is the biggest when there has been no interaction with other races. Which suggests that the instinct hasn't been influenced at all, giving the "purest" results. Whether we have free will or not doesn't make much difference in practical matters. If a mass murderer chooses that path, we (whether individually or collectively) are likely to choose a path that removes his threat. If he was destined by biology to take that path, we're destined by the same biology to respond. So, I'm not terribly bothered over free will. If we have it, we have it. If we don't, we'll continue to believe we do because it feels like we do and because it's too depressing to believe we don't. The study you linked doesn't move my needle very much. Yes, racism is learned. My own personal experience suggests that. But I find myself noticing and suppressing impulses that I could describe as racist, even though I hope I'm anti-racist (someone else will have to pass that judgment on me, I'm not competent to do so). The first question I have about that study is - what do they define as racism? ;-). I find babies' preferences for "pretty" faces to be more compelling (as well as the evidence that pretty = average). Babies also have a bias towards grouping things. That's a very helpful adaptation, as it allows us to conserve mental bandwidth by classifying things according to some quickly observed characteristics, after which we can access a vast trove of knowledge about that thing's class. Imagine if we had to learn how to sit on every new chair we encounter because we're unable to classify it as a chair and access our accumulated knowledge of chairs. Our preferences for average faces and for classifying things are biases (my term for your "seeds") that nudge some into racist thinking. Surely there are many more once (or still) evolutionarily advantageous adaptations at work in our brains that subtly "encourage" us to do the "wrong" things. Those hidden biases may not look all that much like the behaviors that grow from our social interactions, but it seems reasonable to me they have an effect, and I'm curious to know more about them. In Eagleman's book, he cites evidence that we all do have a measureable racist reflex. You just have to know how to measure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Whether we have free will or not doesn't make much difference in practical matters. If a mass murderer choses that path, we (whether individually or collectively) are likely to choose a path that removes his threat. If he was destined by biology to take that path, we're destined by the same biology to respond. So, I'm not terribly bothered over free will. If we have it, we have it. If we don't, we'll continue to believe we do because it feels like we do and because it's too depressing to believe we don't. Couldn't agree more. The study you linked doesn't move my needle very much. Yes, racism is learned. My own personal experience suggests that. But I find myself noticing and suppressing impulses that I could describe as racist, even though I hope I'm anti-racist (someone else will have to pass that judgment on me, I'm not competent to do so). The first question I have about that study is - what do they define as racism? ;-). Certainly not the way it's described in the Oxford dictionary As worded in the article, racial sensitivity might be the better description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 irihapeti wrote: is pretty seductive tho the idea that there might be something outside of us that causes us to do bad. Like it wasnt my fault, Satan made me do it This sentence just about sums up why the rest of your argument is pointless. You are assuming that what you consider to be "bad" is universal. It isn't. Alec - it when people philosophise and argue ignoring their own unjustified and unsubstantiated assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 irihapeti wrote: we are quite capable of making irrational choices as we are rational ones. And we do No, nobody makes irrational choices, Everybody makes choices that are rational to them. They just have insufficient or inadequate information, or their cognitive processes diverge from the logical because of emotional influences. Alec - it when people don't understand the words they are using Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Madelaine McMasters wrote: Babies prefer looking at faces adults have deemed attractive, They are also more willing to trust pretty people. This isn't learned, they're doing it at two months of age. Right, they have spent those two months rethinking Einstein's General Theory and not looking at faces and deciding who to trust. What the ***bleep*** else do babies do during those two months? They are not using their instincts. They are developing theories that work. For them. That's learning. Just because so called scientists are unable to measure or test what they are doing during those two months doesn't mean ***bleep***. Alec - amateurs making fools of themselves in the child development arena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Madelaine McMasters wrote: ETA: In David Eagleman's "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain", he cites research that detects a racist bias in virtually everyone tested, including outspoken anti-racists. ***bleep*** sensationalism! All that research proves is that nobody much likes people that are different from themselves. Colour, race, religion, cultural background, sports team affiliation, ice cream flavour preference, you name the difference, people don't like it. Alec - this nonsensical "scientific" interpretation of simple human behaviour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: So far so good I'd say, If you were considering this thread as evidence I would have to say that you are completely wrong. Alec - a good argument; this thread isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 irihapeti wrote: how you ever considered why Confucious never questions the predicate on which his definition rests? he proceeds on the assumption / predicate that superiority/inferiority is a given You have misspelled Confucius Alec - to spell it Pserendipity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I don't know if he ever questioned that statement, nor do I think he takes the superiority as a given. It's a superiority based on choices made by people. Most people choose to be inferior. Most of the rest try to be superior. And fail. Alec - being genuinely superior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 AlecDeBoeuil wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Babies prefer looking at faces adults have deemed attractive, They are also more willing to trust pretty people. This isn't learned, they're doing it at two months of age. Right, they have spent those two months rethinking Einstein's General Theory and not looking at faces and deciding who to trust. What the ***bleep*** else do babies do during those two months? They are not using their instincts. They are developing theories that work. For them. That's learning. Just because so called scientists are unable to measure or test what they are doing during those two months doesn't mean ***bleep***. Alec - amateurs making fools of themselves in the child development arena If the babies have been "looking at faces and deciding who to trust," then, in general, I'd expect them to prefer looking at people who resemble their parents and immediate family, regardless of how attractive or unattractive their parents may appear to the rest of us. They know their parents look after them, but most other people are going to be an unknown quantity to them. I'm not familiar with the research, but Maddy's summary suggests that babies apparently prefer looking at attractive faces and are more willing to trust pretty people, regardless of what their parents look like. If that really is the case, then it suggests something other than knowing who to trust is responsible for their reactions. I'd question how confident the researchers could be that very young babies are expressing preferences about what they look at or whom they trust, but that's another question altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlecDeBoeuil Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Innula Zenovka wrote: If the babies have been "looking at faces and deciding who to trust," then, in general, I'd expect them to prefer looking at people who resemble their parents and immediate family, regardless of how attractive or unattractive their parents may appear to the rest of us. They know their parents look after them, but most other people are going to be an unknown quantity to them. I'm not familiar with the research, but Maddy's summary suggests that babies apparently prefer looking at attractive faces and are more willing to trust pretty people, regardless of what their parents look like. If that really is the case, then it suggests something other than knowing who to trust is responsible for their reactions. I'd question how confident the researchers could be that very young babies are expressing preferences about what they look at or whom they trust, but that's another question altogether. You're making an awful lot of assumptions in criticising my informed criticism of the research, Innula. Read the papers THEN revise your conclusions. Oh, and WHO DECIDES what is attractive and unattractive? "Adults". What sort of adults? Blind adults? Idiot adults? Paedophile adults? I could go on . . . but then I might have to wonder who "the rest of us" were. To say nothing of the relation between "attractive" and "pretty". How many fathers would admit to being "pretty", do you reckon? Or maybe you are actually agreeing with me about what a crock of ***bleep** Madelaine's example is. Alec - it when people make things up to satisfy their own bigotry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now