"‘They Hid It All’: Catholic Priests Abused 1,000 Children in Pennsylvania, Report Says"

[downzy]

Let’s refrain from personal attacks. 

[Len Cnut]

There's been personal attacks?  Damn, I always miss the good shits!

[killuridols]

14 hours ago, Graeme said:

That's not really what he means though. Humans are the most complex social animals on the planet, but we're still animals. As a result we're kinda torn all the time between our social conditioning, sophisticated emotions and intelligence and the more base instincts to survive, eat and reproduce. Many "bad" decisions that people make (i.e. decisions that go against the accepted morals of society) can be put down to someone ignoring the former to gratify the latter, and they are programmed into each of us. Xenophobia is a trait that originates presumably from pack animals who belong to a family group, as seen in other species of the Great Apes, within each of us there'll be a certain element of wanting to belong to a group and to be nervous or wary of 'outsiders'... Our intelligence and self-awareness frequently allows us to override that tendency and other 'dark traits' like it, but not everyone, not always.

I did understand this study suggests that our species carry some sort of baggage from our ancestors, hence xenophobia and prejudice are programmed into our genes, but this is just a research by evolutionary psychology professors, not an absolute truth that cannot be argued by anyone else.

So I was basically arguing the danger of this notion spread around in websites like the Huffington Post, especially in this moment of white supremacy bullshit rising up and other racist, discriminatory groups who are eagerly looking for reasons and fundaments to support their ideology.

I would have to read the paper more in depth but from a first glance, I already picked some notions that I don't agree with (hierarchy, supremacy, stereotyping of females, etc.) and some of the evidence presented feels kinda weak.

Edited August 16, 2018 by killuridols

[SoulMonster]

Just now, killuridols said:

I did understood this study suggests that our species carry some sort of baggage from our ancestors, hence xenophobia and prejudice are programmed into our genes, but this is just a research by evolutionary psychology professors, not an absolute truth that cannot be argued by anyone else.

So I was basically arguing the danger of this notion spread around in websites like the Huffington Post, especially in this moment of white supremacy bullshit rising up and other racist, discriminatory groups who are eagerly looking for reasons and fundaments to support their ideology.

I would have to read the paper more in depth but from a first glance, I already picked some notions that I don't agree with (hierarchy, supremacy, stereotyping of females, etc.) and some of the evidence presented feels kinda weak.

One paper? It is well understood among anyone studying behavioral genetics that every human behavior that has been studied so far has some genetic component. It can't really be otherwise, either. I linked a popular scientific paper simply because it is more accessible, but you can pick up any textbook on behavioral genetics and read about it there, or just use pubmed and have a blast.

Denying that human behaviors are supported by our genetics isn't just "another position in genetics", as you make it out to be, it is absolute bullshit. You might argue against the collective body of behavior geneticists as much as you want, armed with plenty of ignorance and indignation, but that just makes you a modern-day Don Quixote.

And there really is no danger in Huffington Post or any other media explaining the origins for racism, we cannot expect to overcome such obstacles unless we actually know what causes them. Knowing that we are born with the predisposition for racism and xenophobia urges us protect the sanctity of parenting, education and socializing, which are the only things that can help us suppress racism. So it presents us with a solution, or at least a means to limit the damage. But yeah, in the minds of morons a little knowledge is obviously a dangerous thing.

 

 

[killuridols]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

One paper? It is well understood among anyone studying behavioral genetics that every human behavior that has been studied so far has some genetic component. It can't really be otherwise, either. I linked a popular scientific paper simply because it is more accessible, but you can pick up any textbook on behavioral genetics and read about it there, or just use pubmed and have a blast.

Denying that human behaviors are supported by our genetics isn't just "another position in genetics", as you make it out to be, it is absolute bullshit. You might argue against the collective body of behavior geneticists as much as you want, armed with plenty of ignorance and indignation, but that just makes you a modern-day Don Quixote.

And there really is no danger in Huffington Post or any other media explaining the origins for racism, we cannot expect to overcome such obstacles unless we actually know what causes them. Knowing that we are born with the predisposition for racism and xenophobia urges us protect the sanctity of parenting, education and socializing, which are the only things that can help us suppress racism. So it presents us with a solution, or at least a means to limit the damage. But yeah, in the minds of morons a little knowledge is obviously a dangerous thing.

Look, we can argue all you want about this and I think we will just not agree EVER on the topic but I totally refuse to engage in a discussion with someone who keeps calling me a moron just because I don't agree with your views.
(what's up with this @janrichmond?)

You have no authority over me and I don't know what kind of authority you are in your field of study, but even if you were a Nobel Prize winner, the way you are refering to me leaves a lot to be desire.

Edited August 16, 2018 by killuridols

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

Look, we can argue all you want about this and I think we will just not agree EVER on the topic but I totally refuse to engage in a discussion with someone who keeps calling me a moron just because I don't agree with your views.
(what's up with this @janrichmond?)

You have no authority over me and I don't know what kind of authority you are in your field of study, but even if you were a Nobel Prize winner, the way you are refering to me leaves a lot to be desire.

What, I was talking about racist morons who would justify their racism from suddenly reading that people are genetically predisposed to dislike strangers. I wasn't talking about you. It was a bridge back to a previous post where I made the exact same argument

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

What, I was talking about racist morons who would justify their racism from suddenly reading that people are genetically predisposed to dislike strangers. I wasn't talking about you. It was a bridge back to a previous post where I made the exact same argument

Please refrain from talking to me again.

[janrichmond]

@SoulMonster @killuridols please put each other on ignore.

[killuridols]

This thread is SO awful.....

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Kwick1 said:

Genetics or environment, the old debate. Some traits are clearly genetic, physical attributes including health are clearly genetic. There's little one can do to change physical genetic traits. But those aspects of our personality or character such as whether one is a racist or criminal might not be so clear. As a student I was certain that behavior was largely environment. But as an adult and having friends go thru private adoption agencies and providing a wonderful privileged life for their kids. Yet each has had violent criminal behavior. Now one might say that being adopted led to the behavior but I don't think so. They were adopted as babies from the hospital and never knew a foster home or difficult home experience. So yes, I agree with @SoulMonsterthat behavior is largely genetic. But given the adoption experience that's been very close to me, I'm not sure that any amount of good parenting can overcome genetics. 

Yeah, the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth between nature and nurture. Right now we are at that it really depends upon the trait in question. And twin studies and adoption studies have really helped in understanding what the heritable component of various traits are. Like intelligence, we now know that the heritability of IQ is between 58 and 77 %. 

As a father of two daughters, it is also amazing how different they are, personality-wise. Sure, some of it stems from differences in their environments, but they did come to us with certain personalities and it is oh so hard to completely alter these through parenting. You can only do so much, for better and for worse.

[DieselDaisy]

I'm not sure one can reduce xenophobia to a solely scientific base. There are clearly other factors at play, historic, socio, cultural. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not sure one can reduce xenophobia to a solely scientific base. There are clearly other factors at play, historic, socio, cultural. 

No one is reducing xenophobia to a solely genetic basis. Like every human behavior, xenophobia can be nurtured or suppressed through the environment. 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I think the Catholic church should allow the Priests to marry. It wouldn't stop the abuse, but it would be more normal. If they want to marry, allow them to.

I never understood how a Priest could give you advice on marriage when they will never know what it means to be married? It's just crazy.

It's crazy how many so called religious men are pervs. it's just disgusting. They should all be punished.

[Graeme]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not sure one can reduce xenophobia to a solely scientific base. There are clearly other factors at play, historic, socio, cultural. 

Of course, but we were talking about the roots of it. Society and culture are forms of human social organisation and behaviour which originates in human biology.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

I think the Catholic church should allow the Priests to marry. It wouldn't stop the abuse, but it would be more normal. If they want to marry, allow them to.

I never understood how a Priest could give you advice on marriage when they will never know what it means to be married? It's just crazy.

It's crazy how many so called religious men are pervs. it's just disgusting. They should all be punished.

I agree, celibacy is horrible. You can always argue that they chose it themselves when being ordained, but it is not like they have much of a choice if they want to be a Catholic priest. Is there even a proper Catholic argument for why priests should refrain from sex? 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Graeme said:

Of course, but we were talking about the roots of it. Society and culture are forms of human social organisation and behaviour which originates in human biology.

I don't agree.

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

I think the Catholic church should allow the Priests to marry. It wouldn't stop the abuse, but it would be more normal. If they want to marry, allow them to.

I never understood how a Priest could give you advice on marriage when they will never know what it means to be married? It's just crazy.

It's crazy how many so called religious men are pervs. it's just disgusting. They should all be punished.

They basically did until circa the 4th century. There is no scriptural precedent for the practice. Many of the earliest church fathers were married.

[Graeme]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I don't agree.

Where else could they possibly come from?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Graeme said:

Where else could they possibly come from?

Environmentalism and/or historic trajectory to name just two.

[Graeme]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Environmentalism and/or historic trajectory to name just two.

But human biology is at a base level the foundation of every action that human beings take, however complex (i.e. intellectual or instinctive), so environmentalism and historic trajectory are every bit as much products of it as xenophobia is.

Historical trajectory: a hypothetical event occurs that causes migration from one territory into another. People react badly to the incomers. Why do people react badly? Because of the way they feel about the incomers. Why do they feel that way about the incomers? Because their survival instinct tells them so.

This is not difficult.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Graeme said:

But human biology is at a base level the foundation of every action that human beings take, however complex (i.e. intellectual or instinctive), so environmentalism and historic trajectory are every bit as much products of it as xenophobia is.

Historical trajectory: a hypothetical event occurs that causes migration from one territory into another. People react badly to the incomers. Why do people react badly? Because of the way they feel about the incomers. Why do they feel that way about the incomers? Because their survival instinct tells them so.

This is not difficult.

It is not difficult. It is just complete and utter bollocks.

Most European societies (and by extension New World societies) for instance were not even nationalistic in any modern conception of the term until the late 18th century, although you do see precedents in antiquity and early-modern England and France. Nationalism came diffused by feudalism, the church and a lingua franca. If we were pre-conditioned by genes to be xenophobic presumably Europeans would have erected nation-states far earlier than the 19th century. 

Also, xenophobia tends to be directed at 'x' because of historic forces, usually conflict. Vice versa, amicable relations can be established with 'y' because of conflict resolution/alliances. X and Y fluctuate as a consequence of historic events (e.g. the Entente Cordiale between old enemies Britain and France).

Also some of the bloodiest wars have been fought not between distinct nations but between people from the same nation, family against family.

[killuridols]

3 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Why do people react badly? Because of the way they feel about the incomers. Why do they feel that way about the incomers? Because their survival instinct tells them so.

Or maybe they react badly because MEDIA (a cultural product) bombard people with terrible news and stories about how immigrants are to blame for all the evil of a given nation: "they are coming to take away our jobs", "they are coming to use and abuse our resources", "they are here to rape our women", "they are spreading diseases", "they come to our country to start a mini-Iran".

This "evil other" created by media and also governments is mostly the reason why people have a fear of them, regardless of whether that fear is founded or not.

[DieselDaisy]

There are too many counter examples. Many polities have been founded by disparate people. There are enough examples of different people working together in concord. The Polynesians have already been mentioned. Rousseau saw material forces, state and nationalism, schooling, information/propaganda, as diverting us from our natural benevolent state. 

[Graeme]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is not difficult. It is just complete and utter bollocks.

Most European societies (and by extension New World societies) for instance were not even nationalistic in any modern conception of the term until the late 18th century, although you do see precedents in antiquity and early-modern England and France. Nationalism came diffused by feudalism, the church and a lingua franca. If we were pre-conditioned by genes to be xenophobic presumably Europeans would have erected nation-states far earlier than the 19th century. 

Also, xenophobia tends to be directed at 'x' because of historic forces, usually conflict. Vice versa, amicable relations can be established with 'y' because of conflict resolution/alliances. X and Y fluctuate as a consequence of historic events (e.g. the Entente Cordiale between old enemies Britain and France).

Also some of the bloodiest wars have been fought not between distinct nations but between people from the same nation, family against family.

You're not disproving anything that I've said here. It's already been mentioned in this thread that the 'tribalism' we're talking about doesn't have to specifically pertain to the modern notion of a nation state, irrespective of that being the understanding you're using of the term 'xenophobia'. We're talking in broad strokes about the 'us' vs 'them', that can be country vs. country, town vs. town, football team vs. football team... Yes, thanks to the complex emotional intelligence of humans there's a lot more to it, but the roots of why we like to 'belong'... why it feels good to belong... lie in human biology.
 

5 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Or maybe they react badly because MEDIA (a cultural product) bombard people with terrible news and stories about how immigrants are to blame for all the evil of a given nation: "they are coming to take away our jobs", "they are coming to use and abuse our resources", "they are here to rape our women", "they are spreading diseases", "they come to our country to start a mini-Iran".

This "evil other" created by media and also governments is mostly the reason why people have a fear of them, regardless of whether that fear is founded or not.

Yes, but when people see those reports, the information is processed by their brain, an organ, a biological entity... And their response is formed by a combination of their conscious intelligence and their gut instincts (both of which are biological).

Someone might read an article about the incomers and initially panic, but then calm themselves down and think about the terrible conditions the refugees were fleeing, and decide that their society should be as open and welcoming as possible. Someone else might reach a different conclusion and join a political party asking for the borders to be closed. I'm not saying that biology makes every individual predictable, because we are the most emotionally complex animals on the planet. All I'm saying is that the things we do are, to some extent, determined by our genes.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Graeme said:

You're not disproving anything that I've said here. It's already been mentioned in this thread that the 'tribalism' we're talking about doesn't have to specifically pertain to the modern notion of a nation state, irrespective of that being the understanding you're using of the term 'xenophobia'. We're talking in broad strokes about the 'us' vs 'them', that can be country vs. country, town vs. town, football team vs. football team... Yes, thanks to the complex emotional intelligence of humans there's a lot more to it, but the roots of why we like to 'belong'... why it feels good to belong... lie in human biology.

I don't agree. It is a thorough redundancy: materialistic determinism run rampant.