View Poll Results: Men: Would you marry an American Woman?

Voters
102. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    72 70.59%
  • No

    23 22.55%
  • Does not apply to me.

    7 6.86%
Page 156 of 164 FirstFirst ... 56106146154155156157158 ... LastLast
Results 1,551 to 1,560 of 1640

Thread: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

  1. #1551
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    Yes and hopefully not.
    What's the difference? Where does jealousy come from if it's not taught?

    If a moral compass is taught, then what principles underlie the differing conclusions we see from this thought experiment:

    A trolley is coming down a track, and it’s going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one but save the five. Most people think that’s morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, “Doctor, we’ve got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?” No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they’re identical in that sense.

    Orphanages that do no harm are great, I am even sure a few probably exist somewhere for a few lucky children.
    The key point here is - "do no harm." This applies to parents, to foster parents, to orphanages. Don't work to retard what nature is developing within the child. Orphanages differ from family life with either parents or foster parents in that they lack parental figures instead substituting adults who provide care but don't have the time to develop the close relationships with the children which enable the supposed tutoring of a moral conscience.

    In 1952, ten-year-old Richard and his 12-year-old brother were delivered to the Home, a Presbyterian orphanage in rural North Carolina, after their mother committed suicide and their father was found too chronically drunk to care for them. They remained there until they graduated from high school. McKenzie's remembrance of those years is neither whitewashed nor nostalgic; he gives evidence that orphanages can be "a refuge and a source of inspiration" to neglected children. McKenzie, an author and professor of economics, has prefaced this work with responses from a survey of over 1000 living "alumni" of the Home supporting the positive attributes of institutional care: security, stability, permanence, direction, and a value system. McKenzie presents a compelling argument in favor of giving abused or homeless children an opportunity to begin a new life by escaping both their sordid past and their hopeless present. Highly recommended for both lay readers and policymakers.

    I am sure for some children this is true, but not 70% of them. which is the incarceration rate.
    Please, I show you respect by reading what you write and I try to engage your points, so could you return the favor? Your response completely neglects the selection effect I detailed in my comment. If you want to isolate the effect of "no parents" and see how it affects incarceration rates, then you need to control from kids who are already troubled, already carrying the baggage of mental illness, etc.

    You are arguing from an absolute, why?
    You need to come up with an explanation for how a moral conscience can develop in children when no parents are present to instill it. That's a pretty big point, don't you agree?

  2. #1552
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    The only true way to understand something is to experience it yourself. I can tell you not to touch fire or you will get burned, but you will never truly understand the nature of fire until you have experience with it. While certain beliefs are either picked up by children or otherwise taught that can in turn change the make up of their moral character, the majority of what they understand as morality comes from personal experience and how they personally see the world around them. Personal growth is not found in the lessons of society, but in the understanding of the nature of things around you and of yourself.
    Home | moralfoundations.org

    This is the most complete explanation of human moral behavior I have ever seen. It goes into the biological mechanisms of the formation of moral behaviors and strategies (and morality is, in the end, a survival strategy just like any other primate).

    I think your primary mistake is that you think morality can be based on reason. Thats not how humans evolved.

  3. #1553
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    What's the difference? Where does jealousy come from if it's not taught?

    If a moral compass is taught, then what principles underlie the differing conclusions we see from this thought experiment:

    A trolley is coming down a track, and it’s going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one but save the five. Most people think that’s morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, “Doctor, we’ve got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?” No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they’re identical in that sense.
    Children aren't a blank slate, that theory is long dead since the age of actual science. Jealousy is innate to humanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    The key point here is - "do no harm." This applies to parents, to foster parents, to orphanages. Don't work to retard what nature is developing within the child. Orphanages differ from family life with either parents or foster parents in that they lack parental figures instead substituting adults who provide care but don't have the time to develop the close relationships with the children which enable the supposed tutoring of a moral conscience.

    In 1952, ten-year-old Richard and his 12-year-old brother were delivered to the Home, a Presbyterian orphanage in rural North Carolina, after their mother committed suicide and their father was found too chronically drunk to care for them. They remained there until they graduated from high school. McKenzie's remembrance of those years is neither whitewashed nor nostalgic; he gives evidence that orphanages can be "a refuge and a source of inspiration" to neglected children. McKenzie, an author and professor of economics, has prefaced this work with responses from a survey of over 1000 living "alumni" of the Home supporting the positive attributes of institutional care: security, stability, permanence, direction, and a value system. McKenzie presents a compelling argument in favor of giving abused or homeless children an opportunity to begin a new life by escaping both their sordid past and their hopeless present. Highly recommended for both lay readers and policymakers.
    I can speak from personal experience. I tried the hands off, do no harm approach and my kids turned into spoiled brats. When I got strict with them and started actively teaching them and communicating firm expectations, they became good children who are empathetic and highly emotionally intelligent for their age. My oldest boy has autism and I have not only gotten him out of his shell with this method but he actually got himself a date.

    Children learning from other children is good to an extent, but remember, the pre-frontal cortex doesn't actually stop developed until a person is around twenty. The pre-frontal cortex is key for emotional control at an adult level and key to effective behavioral modelling. Children cannot provide this to other children as a fact of biology.

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Please, I show you respect by reading what you write and I try to engage your points, so could you return the favor? Your response completely neglects the selection effect I detailed in my comment. If you want to isolate the effect of "no parents" and see how it affects incarceration rates, then you need to control from kids who are already troubled, already carrying the baggage of mental illness, etc.
    I haven't seen enough merit in your anecdotes to warrant a response. I am responding with facts while you are using morality questions and stuff like that. Much of this stuff has been studied and is backed up by really good data, I will go with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    You need to come up with an explanation for how a moral conscience can develop in children when no parents are present to instill it. That's a pretty big point, don't you agree?
    Umm, my point was that parents are key in developing that. Teaching children how to behave civilly. Have you seen tribes of children and how they behave? Its pretty scary stuff.

  4. #1554
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    Home | moralfoundations.org

    This is the most complete explanation of human moral behavior I have ever seen. It goes into the biological mechanisms of the formation of moral behaviors and strategies (and morality is, in the end, a survival strategy just like any other primate).

    I noticed how he gave compliments to liberals, but insulted every other group.

    I will even quote the insult:

    6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.
    What utter garbage. What kind of moron thinks the reason people want to be free is because they feel hatred for bullies and dominators? Jesus.

  5. #1555
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,420

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I don't believe that. You make it sound as if empathy and concern for others was just a creation of society, but if that was the case why would it even cross the human brain to start teaching such things to children? It is the lack of brain development and experience which are the reasons for the behavior.

    There is really no validity to the argument that morality and basic human capabilities like empathy are the creation of society. There is however much to support the argument that society is damaging to these basic capabilities.
    Ok, first off, I don't think that anyone is arguing that there is no genetic component to various personality disorders including anti-social personality disorder. However, no psychologist would argue that you cannot have any influence over the type of person your child grows up to be. For example, lets say that 80% of sociopaths have gene A. That does not mean that everyone with gene A grows up to be a sociopath, it just means that hypothetical gene predisposes them to it. The differences between someone with that gene that ends up a sociopath and someone with that gene that doesn't is largely early childhood development.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  6. #1556
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Yes, but there are cases of feral children.

    Fascinating, this particular child lived just like an animal. Do you think he possessed qualities like empathy?

    Interesting link here.

    10 Modern Cases of Feral Children - Listverse
    Another thing to keep in mind here is that the vast majority of "feral child" stories are either grossly exaggerated or completely made up. In most legitimate cases, the child is not raised in the wild from infancy to adulthood, but rather young childhood (5 or 6 years of age) onwards. Even then, they usually only live in that state for a few years before being rescued by someone.

    Frankly, the damage that even such a short period of time cut off from human contact is capable of causing to a child's brain should more than speak to the necessity of social interaction in human development all by itself.

  7. #1557
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I noticed how he gave compliments to liberals, but insulted every other group.

    I will even quote the insult:



    What utter garbage.
    yes, it grates against what you would like to see. How you feel about it is irrelevant. If you go further into Haidt's work, he tends to lean conservative in his praising. For example liberals tend to strongly emphasize 1 and 2 while ignoring 3-5. Conservatives tend to put equal weight on all five.

    And honestly, as a liberal, when I read 3-5 I kind of go WTF, those have no value! but the reason is simply my brain is not formed in a way that I have the structures built for that kind of thinking. This is both good and bad for various reasons (but then again EVERYTHING in life is both good and bad for various reasons, so thats not a very insightful statement)

    Number 6 was added because people complained, I will admit (I am not sure Haidt fully agrees with it), but liberty is a human want (we all want more freedom), just like people want more candy and nice cars. Its something we have to work to get (because life hands us nothing for free and the default state is deprivation of everything), so I am not sure it qualifies either.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-11-14 at 11:38 PM.

  8. #1558
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Another thing to keep in mind here is that the vast majority of "feral child" stories are either grossly exaggerated or completely made up. In most legitimate cases, the child is not raised in the wild from infancy to adulthood, but rather young childhood (5 or 6 years of age) onwards. Even then, they usually only live in that state for a few years before being rescued by someone.

    Frankly, the damage that even such a short period of time cut off from human contact is capable of causing to a child's brain should more than speak to the necessity of social interaction in human development all by itself.
    Right, well in my link it acknowledges that some of these children were abandoned by parents or just went missing during war time. No one is really SURE of their ages when they were left to fend for themselves.

  9. #1559
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,420

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Have you read "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris? She does a nice job of demolishing positions that were widely held by psychologists.

    Here's my point - all anyone needs do is find an instance which falsifies a widely held hypothesis and then the hypothesis crumbles. Did American orphanages turn out armies of sociopaths? The industrial or factory type of "parenting" from American orphanage caregivers was far different from that of parents, in terms of quantity and quality, and yet children raised in American orphanages in the past weren't all sociopaths.
    Frankly, thats absurd. Who would argue that every orphan ended up a sociopath? The question would be did children growing up in orphanages have a higher statistical likelihood of developing anti-social personality disorder than children that grew up in traditional homes.

    Secondly, what exactly is the precise technique which parents must use to instill conscience building? What if a parent doesn't know how to do this, does this doom the child to being a sociopath?
    Of course not, who said that it did. Neurologists have long known now that sociopaths brains look different in terms of activity compared to normal individuals. You can read about it here:

    Sabbatini, RME: The Psychopath's Brain. Tormented Souls, Diseased Brains

    What makes a sociopath is a mixture of a physiological predisposition to it and in most cases a deprived childhood (from the link above):

    One interesting aspect of Dr. Raine's research is that he correlated the PET brain images to the murderer''s personal history, in order to ascertain whether they were subjected to trauma, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, poverty, when they were children (a deprived environment for the development of personality). Of the murderers, 12 had suffered significant abuse or deprivation. It was discovered that murderer's coming from non-deprived households had much larger deficits in the orbitofrontal area of the brain (14 % on the average) than normal people and murderer's coming from deprived environments (see figure below).

    What's really going on is a child following a developmental path which is largely determined by their genetic inheritance. Negative environmental influences can certainly have an effect and knock them about, sometimes inducing sociopathic traits, but a "neutral" environment of benign neglect, which is the default mode for most of human history, doesn't harm children.
    As I stated and sourced above, its a combination actually. As an adoptive parent I can tell you that benign neglect in orphanages certainly can result in psychological and developmental issues.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  10. #1560
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    Children aren't a blank slate, that theory is long dead since the age of actual science. Jealousy is innate to humanity.
    Wait, what? Now you've turned the tables and you're arguing against the Blank Slate when you were previously arguing in favor of it? Did I miss that ju-jitsu move? When did I switch roles and begin arguing in favor of Blank Slatism?

    I can speak from personal experience. I tried the hands off, do no harm approach and my kids turned into spoiled brats. When I got strict with them and started actively teaching them and communicating firm expectations, they became good children who are empathetic and highly emotionally intelligent for their age.
    It looks to me like you're sending out ranging fire - going from extreme to extreme. A "hands off" approach isn't what is usually employed in orphanages. They all have rules, they all enforce behavior. The kids aren't free to do as they please. What the orphanages strive to do is "No Harm."

    My oldest boy has autism and I have not only gotten him out of his shell with this method but he actually got himself a date.
    That's fantastic but to extrapolate from an autistic child to all children is an invalid logical leap.

    I am responding with facts
    Is that what you kids call it these days? Back in my day we called what you were doing "argument by assertion." Facts, huh? OK.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •