Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

corporal punishment

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:26:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

How do YOU explain low ranking mothers being rougher with their offspring then?
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:28:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

==========================

Let's get things straight here. Children to NOT have adult logic, they are children. Secondly, we are animals, albeit arguably at the top of the tree. Just about every animal corrects it's young by a quick slap around the head or backside. It does no lasting damage, and no child has ever grown up the worse for it. I am not talking about a beating, and in actual fact believe in the saying" if you have to think about slapping a child, don't do it". That's to say, it should be an instinctive act.

These left wing liberal hippies really drive me mad !!
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:32:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

=============================

Ummmmm, I think you will find that historically we are far more savage than our animal companions. We are only one of two creatures on the planet that kill for fun (the polar bear being the other). Because our intelligence is greater than theirs, doesn't make us any better, and certainly doesn't make us more important in the eyes of nature.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:33:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:28:05 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
Let's get things straight here. Children to NOT have adult logic, they are children. Secondly, we are animals, albeit arguably at the top of the tree. Just about every animal corrects it's young by a quick slap around the head or backside. It does no lasting damage, and no child has ever grown up the worse for it. I am not talking about a beating, and in actual fact believe in the saying" if you have to think about slapping a child, don't do it". That's to say, it should be an instinctive act.

These left wing liberal hippies really drive me mad !!

How would you describe your social status?
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:50:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:33:12 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:28:05 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
Let's get things straight here. Children to NOT have adult logic, they are children. Secondly, we are animals, albeit arguably at the top of the tree. Just about every animal corrects it's young by a quick slap around the head or backside. It does no lasting damage, and no child has ever grown up the worse for it. I am not talking about a beating, and in actual fact believe in the saying" if you have to think about slapping a child, don't do it". That's to say, it should be an instinctive act.

These left wing liberal hippies really drive me mad !!

How would you describe your social status?

===========================

You define it for me. I come from an upper working class family. That is to say my father worked in management, but didn't earn a fortune. I spent most of my career in
senior management, and then through my own decision stepped down. I am privileged in the sense that I have experienced the need to live on little money, and now live quite comfortably. I mix with all classes, and firmly believe we can learn more from the past's values than the futures liberalism's.

Back to the thread. I think it is great if you can discipline your children without smacking them, but also believe that no parent should be condemned for giving his/her child a slap on the arse.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:55:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:50:27 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
So interesting. You mix with people of all classes and yet see yourself as classless.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:57:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:55:56 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:50:27 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
So interesting. You mix with people of all classes and yet see yourself as classless.

I mean, you acknowledge social rank (all classes) but exclude yourself from it. A lot of people do that.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 4:00:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:57:46 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:55:56 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:50:27 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
So interesting. You mix with people of all classes and yet see yourself as classless.

I mean, you acknowledge social rank (all classes) but exclude yourself from it. A lot of people do that.

=====================

If pushed I would say working class. The reality is that 99% of people in the UK are working class, so it's hardly worth wasting time putting people in boxes.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 4:07:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 4:00:44 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
If pushed I would say working class. The reality is that 99% of people in the UK are working class, so it's hardly worth wasting time putting people in boxes.

Yes. And in the op example, everyone was a monkey in a cage. And yet the low ranking mother monkeys were more violent. Maybe it's social rank relative to the people you see every day that matters, not your official class as such. But I suppose the richest people are immune from relative low rank because they're surrounded by staff. And the poorest people see rich people on TV.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 4:22:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

I think that it would be nice if you link the source. Then it should be clarified if the study was conducted through a survey. A problem with the survey could be that high ranking families could be more concerned with statu quo and lie, while low ranking families, maybe don't care about that or think it is not something to be ashamed of, so they do not lie when answering.

About it being the case on chimps, it could simply be that high ranking families are more happy and less stressed, and therefore they tend to be less violent with their children. It doesn't need to be a behavior wired in the genes.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 4:24:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 4:07:14 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 4:00:44 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
If pushed I would say working class. The reality is that 99% of people in the UK are working class, so it's hardly worth wasting time putting people in boxes.

Yes. And in the op example, everyone was a monkey in a cage. And yet the low ranking mother monkeys were more violent. Maybe it's social rank relative to the people you see every day that matters, not your official class as such. But I suppose the richest people are immune from relative low rank because they're surrounded by staff. And the poorest people see rich people on TV.

================

I can see where you are coming from. It may be a non politically correct thing to say, but I believe that parents from a higher social status tend to be better parents. This can be supported by looking at the type of people in prison. Very few of them are brought up in a wealth and stable home. I am presuming the U.S is the same as the U.K in the sense we are allowed to think such things, but not allowed to say them.

That said, I believe that parents from all classes are prepared to slap their children, whilst the parents from a higher standing are more likely to try other things first. My real point is that law/society should not determine whether a parent should slap their child or not. Needless to say, beating them is another subject.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 9:09:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 4:22:48 AM, Otokage wrote:
I think that it would be nice if you link the source. Then it should be clarified if the study was conducted through a survey. A problem with the survey could be that high ranking families could be more concerned with statu quo and lie, while low ranking families, maybe don't care about that or think it is not something to be ashamed of, so they do not lie when answering.

Could be, but the evidence seems robust. Just do a search in Google schoar on "physical punishment" and status or ses because there's quite a few papers.

About it being the case on chimps, it could simply be that high ranking families are more happy and less stressed, and therefore they tend to be less violent with their children. It doesn't need to be a behavior wired in the genes.

Not in theory, but maternal behavior is something fundamental to human survival so it seems unlikely that it wouldn't be adaptive. The maternal instinct is very strong. Stress is part of ordinary life. You'd think that if mother-infant spanking was so detrimental to child outcomes, it would be less common than it is (almost universal) in evolutionary terms.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 9:34:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 4:24:58 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
I can see where you are coming from. It may be a non politically correct thing to say, but I believe that parents from a higher social status tend to be better parents. This can be supported by looking at the type of people in prison. Very few of them are brought up in a wealth and stable home. I am presuming the U.S is the same as the U.K in the sense we are allowed to think such things, but not allowed to say them.

Most people are in prison for stealing or selling drugs or related crimes. That is, property crimes or breaking the law for profit. But, for every person convicted there are probably dozens that got away with it and made money. It's a risky and bad way of getting rich and obviously there are better ways. But maybe for low ranking people, the risk is worth it.

So the point I'm making is that maybe it makes sense for low ranking mothers to be violent and neglect their children slightly (not too much) because the skills and attitudes they need to get ahead are different from those if high ranking children.

That said, I believe that parents from all classes are prepared to slap their children, whilst the parents from a higher standing are more likely to try other things first. My real point is that law/society should not determine whether a parent should slap their child or not. Needless to say, beating them is another subject.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 11:27:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 9:34:37 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 4:24:58 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
I can see where you are coming from. It may be a non politically correct thing to say, but I believe that parents from a higher social status tend to be better parents. This can be supported by looking at the type of people in prison. Very few of them are brought up in a wealth and stable home. I am presuming the U.S is the same as the U.K in the sense we are allowed to think such things, but not allowed to say them.

Most people are in prison for stealing or selling drugs or related crimes. That is, property crimes or breaking the law for profit. But, for every person convicted there are probably dozens that got away with it and made money. It's a risky and bad way of getting rich and obviously there are better ways. But maybe for low ranking people, the risk is worth it.

So the point I'm making is that maybe it makes sense for low ranking mothers to be violent and neglect their children slightly (not too much) because the skills and attitudes they need to get ahead are different from those if high ranking children.

That said, I believe that parents from all classes are prepared to slap their children, whilst the parents from a higher standing are more likely to try other things first. My real point is that law/society should not determine whether a parent should slap their child or not. Needless to say, beating them is another subject.

========

Yeh, all that is well and good. My son has his own successful business. He is web designer and creates bespoke web designs for companies who want to go the extra mile and have a really top class site. He worked his way through uni by starting a web site selling other peoples 3d images. He has a very high IQ, works 28 hours a week and spends a full day looking after stray dogs that need a home. His salary is more than mine and my wife's put together. He has an honors degree, and never been in trouble with the law in his life. When he was a child he got the occasional slap on the back of his legs. So where did I do wrong ?
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 12:46:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 9:09:39 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 4:22:48 AM, Otokage wrote:
I think that it would be nice if you link the source. Then it should be clarified if the study was conducted through a survey. A problem with the survey could be that high ranking families could be more concerned with statu quo and lie, while low ranking families, maybe don't care about that or think it is not something to be ashamed of, so they do not lie when answering.

Could be, but the evidence seems robust. Just do a search in Google schoar on "physical punishment" and status or ses because there's quite a few papers.

I've done a quick research, but the most I've found is about the outcomes of physical punishment, not a relation between social status and the frecuency of physical punishment towards children. Although I wouldn't have many problems to believe surveys reflect a higher physical punishment on low-class families, in fact, I see everyday at school how top-middle or high class students often behave more erratically than low-middle or low class students, probably because of a fear of their parents to punish them, not only physically, but in any way.

About it being the case on chimps, it could simply be that high ranking families are more happy and less stressed, and therefore they tend to be less violent with their children. It doesn't need to be a behavior wired in the genes.

Not in theory, but maternal behavior is something fundamental to human survival so it seems unlikely that it wouldn't be adaptive.

I agree. Maternal behavior is indeed on our DNA and not (or not only) an acquired behavior, as a lot of studies show (if not all) that female animals rised in isolation still demonstrate maternal behavior.

The maternal instinct is very strong. Stress is part of ordinary life. You'd think that if mother-infant spanking was so detrimental to child outcomes, it would be less common than it is (almost universal) in evolutionary terms.

Yes. Stress is part of ordinary life, and the answer to stress are indeed evolutive. As for spaking being detrimental, I've never said such a thing, on the contrary, I think physical contact is necessary, both to show affection to your children, and also to punish them. However I remain skeptical that physical punishment has evolutionary advantages to a single sector of the population (lower class), or that it serves the purpose you mentioned.

In my opinion, corporal punishment is useful in all sectors of the population, as children of a certain age do not have the ability to understand many concepts through reasoning, but they can understand, regardless of age, through the physical contact.

Like I said, if there really is a higher frequency in the lower class, I would think this is because the lower class is overall more stressed (as a result of being more concerned with obtaining resources), and relieves stress through various forms, such as violence towards others (for example towards children).
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 12:46:11 PM, Otokage wrote:
Maybe you're right. I started thinking about this because of findings that developmental, emotional and conduct disorders are inversely related to SES in children and I was wondering why that was. But I think that many of those are assessed by teacher and parent report too.

I don't buy the stress explanation. Too simplistic, and it shifts the "blame" too squarely away from society and onto the individual.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:40:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:26:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

How do YOU explain low ranking mothers being rougher with their offspring then?

If we're talking human mothers, not in zoological or evolutionary-biological terms, but rather as a consequence, a manifestation of the socioeconomic stressors that are part and parcel of the existential lot of the underprivileged and the poor. In short, poverty generates rough conditions and environments that can produce rough people and styles of mothering. It's not as much of a proposition of biological hardwiring with humans as it might be with certain other species. Well, of course, even in the case of other animal species we see that environmental stress impacts behavior, including altering parenting behavior. And in the case of our own species, with nurture and environment arguably being a more important factor in determining behavior than sheer genetics, it in fact makes more sense to attribute socioeconomically "low ranking mothers being rougher with their offspring" to socioeconomic causes. Genetics certainly aren't irrelevant, but we shouldn't go in for the kind of biological determinism that's so in-vogue in our materialistic culture.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 3:40:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 11:27:08 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
Yeh, all that is well and good. My son has his own successful business. He is web designer and creates bespoke web designs for companies who want to go the extra mile and have a really top class site. He worked his way through uni by starting a web site selling other peoples 3d images. He has a very high IQ, works 28 hours a week and spends a full day looking after stray dogs that need a home. His salary is more than mine and my wife's put together. He has an honors degree, and never been in trouble with the law in his life. When he was a child he got the occasional slap on the back of his legs. So where did I do wrong ?

A perfect man! Yay! I knew it wasn't just a myth!
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 4:19:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:32:49 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

=============================

Ummmmm, I think you will find that historically we are far more savage than our animal companions. We are only one of two creatures on the planet that kill for fun (the polar bear being the other). Because our intelligence is greater than theirs, doesn't make us any better, and certainly doesn't make us more important in the eyes of nature.

Well, dolphins also have been observed to sometimes kill (even other dolphins) playfully & gleefully, seemingly for the sheer thrill of it. At any rate, yes, human beings can behave pretty dreadfully, and one can use this as ammunition to justify being down on humanity and elevating other animals in one's estimation, but we are in fact more complex creatures capable of a more complex experience of life. And we do in fact create socioeconomic systems whose manmade conditions and imbalances/injustices can and do profoundly affect behavior and parenting. (As for human beings not being "more important in the eyes of nature", well, you're committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. No, nature is not actually an entity, let alone an entity viewing its creatures and functioning as an arbiter of their importance. What nature fundamentally is, rather, is energy, creativity, and experience. Micro events, entities of energy-creativity-experience and the macro objects & creature that they organize into, actualizing themselves, striving for the best, richest, most complex-intense self-actualization available to them. This being the summum bonum of existence, complexity and intensity of self-actualization in fact determines a species' importance and value, and ergo yes, a human being, even a miserable specimen of one, being capable of more sophisticated experiences, is more important than a paramecium or a moth. Well, at least this is the view of those of us who subscribe to a pancreativist, panexperientialist ontology.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 6:23:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 4:19:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:32:49 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

=============================

Ummmmm, I think you will find that historically we are far more savage than our animal companions. We are only one of two creatures on the planet that kill for fun (the polar bear being the other). Because our intelligence is greater than theirs, doesn't make us any better, and certainly doesn't make us more important in the eyes of nature.

Well, dolphins also have been observed to sometimes kill (even other dolphins) playfully & gleefully, seemingly for the sheer thrill of it. At any rate, yes, human beings can behave pretty dreadfully, and one can use this as ammunition to justify being down on humanity and elevating other animals in one's estimation, but we are in fact more complex creatures capable of a more complex experience of life. And we do in fact create socioeconomic systems whose manmade conditions and imbalances/injustices can and do profoundly affect behavior and parenting. (As for human beings not being "more important in the eyes of nature", well, you're committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. No, nature is not actually an entity, let alone an entity viewing its creatures and functioning as an arbiter of their importance. What nature fundamentally is, rather, is energy, creativity, and experience. Micro events, entities of energy-creativity-experience and the macro objects & creature that they organize into, actualizing themselves, striving for the best, richest, most complex-intense self-actualization available to them. This being the summum bonum of existence, complexity and intensity of self-actualization in fact determines a species' importance and value, and ergo yes, a human being, even a miserable specimen of one, being capable of more sophisticated experiences, is more important than a paramecium or a moth. Well, at least this is the view of those of us who subscribe to a pancreativist, panexperientialist ontology.)

If by important you mean that we are the most capable of impacting ecosystems at will, then yes, but if you are referring to any other thing, I disagree with the concept that we are biologically more important than a paramecium or a moth. There are a lot of species that are key to ecosystems' survival, but I doubt humans, or apes in general, fit into that category, as there's a lot of species (or combination of species) that can quickly fill apes' ecological niche, and even if they couldn't, I doubt that would demolish the ecosystem in the same way that would happen if, ie, herbaceous plants dissapear from a prairie.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 7:40:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 6:23:55 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/16/2014 4:19:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:32:49 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

=============================

Ummmmm, I think you will find that historically we are far more savage than our animal companions. We are only one of two creatures on the planet that kill for fun (the polar bear being the other). Because our intelligence is greater than theirs, doesn't make us any better, and certainly doesn't make us more important in the eyes of nature.

Well, dolphins also have been observed to sometimes kill (even other dolphins) playfully & gleefully, seemingly for the sheer thrill of it. At any rate, yes, human beings can behave pretty dreadfully, and one can use this as ammunition to justify being down on humanity and elevating other animals in one's estimation, but we are in fact more complex creatures capable of a more complex experience of life. And we do in fact create socioeconomic systems whose manmade conditions and imbalances/injustices can and do profoundly affect behavior and parenting. (As for human beings not being "more important in the eyes of nature", well, you're committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. No, nature is not actually an entity, let alone an entity viewing its creatures and functioning as an arbiter of their importance. What nature fundamentally is, rather, is energy, creativity, and experience. Micro events, entities of energy-creativity-experience and the macro objects & creature that they organize into, actualizing themselves, striving for the best, richest, most complex-intense self-actualization available to them. This being the summum bonum of existence, complexity and intensity of self-actualization in fact determines a species' importance and value, and ergo yes, a human being, even a miserable specimen of one, being capable of more sophisticated experiences, is more important than a paramecium or a moth. Well, at least this is the view of those of us who subscribe to a pancreativist, panexperientialist ontology.)

If by important you mean that we are the most capable of impacting ecosystems at will, then yes, but if you are referring to any other thing, I disagree with the concept that we are biologically more important than a paramecium or a moth. There are a lot of species that are key to ecosystems' survival, but I doubt humans, or apes in general, fit into that category, as there's a lot of species (or combination of species) that can quickly fill apes' ecological niche, and even if they couldn't, I doubt that would demolish the ecosystem in the same way that would happen if, ie, herbaceous plants dissapear from a prairie.

In my ontological point of view it's a creature's capacity for complex and higher forms of experience that get it deemed more important or valuable, not the magnitude of its role in the ecosystem.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 7:51:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 7:40:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 6:23:55 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/16/2014 4:19:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:32:49 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

=============================

Ummmmm, I think you will find that historically we are far more savage than our animal companions. We are only one of two creatures on the planet that kill for fun (the polar bear being the other). Because our intelligence is greater than theirs, doesn't make us any better, and certainly doesn't make us more important in the eyes of nature.

Well, dolphins also have been observed to sometimes kill (even other dolphins) playfully & gleefully, seemingly for the sheer thrill of it. At any rate, yes, human beings can behave pretty dreadfully, and one can use this as ammunition to justify being down on humanity and elevating other animals in one's estimation, but we are in fact more complex creatures capable of a more complex experience of life. And we do in fact create socioeconomic systems whose manmade conditions and imbalances/injustices can and do profoundly affect behavior and parenting. (As for human beings not being "more important in the eyes of nature", well, you're committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. No, nature is not actually an entity, let alone an entity viewing its creatures and functioning as an arbiter of their importance. What nature fundamentally is, rather, is energy, creativity, and experience. Micro events, entities of energy-creativity-experience and the macro objects & creature that they organize into, actualizing themselves, striving for the best, richest, most complex-intense self-actualization available to them. This being the summum bonum of existence, complexity and intensity of self-actualization in fact determines a species' importance and value, and ergo yes, a human being, even a miserable specimen of one, being capable of more sophisticated experiences, is more important than a paramecium or a moth. Well, at least this is the view of those of us who subscribe to a pancreativist, panexperientialist ontology.)

If by important you mean that we are the most capable of impacting ecosystems at will, then yes, but if you are referring to any other thing, I disagree with the concept that we are biologically more important than a paramecium or a moth. There are a lot of species that are key to ecosystems' survival, but I doubt humans, or apes in general, fit into that category, as there's a lot of species (or combination of species) that can quickly fill apes' ecological niche, and even if they couldn't, I doubt that would demolish the ecosystem in the same way that would happen if, ie, herbaceous plants dissapear from a prairie.

In my ontological point of view it's a creature's capacity for complex and higher forms of experience that get it deemed more important or valuable, not the magnitude of its role in the ecosystem.

Here's a book that you might perhaps be interested in (it's in epub format and should be readable on any tablet), http://www.axifile.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 7:55:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:32:49 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:11:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In captivity, low ranking monkey mothers are more likely to be violent with their juvenile offspring than are high ranking monkey mothers. The same pattern has been observed with human mothers, corporal punishment and social status.

This makes me think that physical punishment of children could have an evolutionary advantage in low ranking families.

For example - perhaps low ranking males are unlikely to form significant mating relationships, so it's better if they learn not to form meaningful relationships, that they respond shallowly and physically to stuff, and then at least they can snatch at mating opportunities on the periphery of society.

What do you think?

Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

=============================

Ummmmm, I think you will find that historically we are far more savage than our animal companions. We are only one of two creatures on the planet that kill for fun (the polar bear being the other). Because our intelligence is greater than theirs, doesn't make us any better, and certainly doesn't make us more important in the eyes of nature.

Not wanting to change the topic, just pointing out that there are plenty of animals that kill for fun (such as cats and orcas).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 8:55:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:26:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

How do YOU explain low ranking mothers being rougher with their offspring then?

You beat your kids when you're pissed off not when you're f*cking balling.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 9:55:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 3:40:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:26:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

How do YOU explain low ranking mothers being rougher with their offspring then?

If we're talking human mothers, not in zoological or evolutionary-biological terms, but rather as a consequence, a manifestation of the socioeconomic stressors that are part and parcel of the existential lot of the underprivileged and the poor. In short, poverty generates rough conditions and environments that can produce rough people and styles of mothering. It's not as much of a proposition of biological hardwiring with humans as it might be with certain other species. Well, of course, even in the case of other animal species we see that environmental stress impacts behavior, including altering parenting behavior. And in the case of our own species, with nurture and environment arguably being a more important factor in determining behavior than sheer genetics, it in fact makes more sense to attribute socioeconomically "low ranking mothers being rougher with their offspring" to socioeconomic causes. Genetics certainly aren't irrelevant, but we shouldn't go in for the kind of biological determinism that's so in-vogue in our materialistic culture.

Except that humans evolved in stressful conditions, not in middle class suburbia. That means that stressed motherhood is standard and normal for humans. I don't think it's biological determinism to make that observation.

That's why I don't like this model of yours (and everyone's) which seems to assume that there's an ideal way of mothering which is most closely realized by middle and upper class mothers, but which, unfortunately, lower class mothers fall short of due to "stressors".

It's bigoted, but far more important is that it doesn't make sense. If motherhood evolved in stressful conditions, then mothers' behavior in stressful conditions can be assumed to be adaptive. Not a degraded version of adaptive behavior seen elsewhere in better conditions.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 10:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For example, this study with macaques shows that low ranking mothers have higher glucocorticoid concentrations in their milk, which makes their offspring less confident and more nervous and optimizes weight gain:

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org...

It makes sense that offspring confidence should be related to social rank.

So I think it's not only possible, but very likely that maternal instinct is sensitive to social rank, and low ranking mothers instinctively want their children to be cautious, safe, and to eat, whereas high ranking mothers are instinctively more about building feelings of entitlement and social confidence.
YYW
Posts: 36,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 10:37:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 10:32:42 PM, Garbanza wrote:
For example, this study with macaques shows that low ranking mothers have higher glucocorticoid concentrations in their milk, which makes their offspring less confident and more nervous and optimizes weight gain:

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org...

It makes sense that offspring confidence should be related to social rank.

So I think it's not only possible, but very likely that maternal instinct is sensitive to social rank, and low ranking mothers instinctively want their children to be cautious, safe, and to eat, whereas high ranking mothers are instinctively more about building feelings of entitlement and social confidence.

It seems to me that parental mistakes pass from generation to generation.
Tsar of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 2:28:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 9:55:48 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:40:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:26:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/16/2014 3:22:17 AM, charleslb wrote:
Sure human beings are animals, but let's not go in for reconceptualizing ourselves as beasts.

How do YOU explain low ranking mothers being rougher with their offspring then?

If we're talking human mothers, not in zoological or evolutionary-biological terms, but rather as a consequence, a manifestation of the socioeconomic stressors that are part and parcel of the existential lot of the underprivileged and the poor. In short, poverty generates rough conditions and environments that can produce rough people and styles of mothering. It's not as much of a proposition of biological hardwiring with humans as it might be with certain other species. Well, of course, even in the case of other animal species we see that environmental stress impacts behavior, including altering parenting behavior. And in the case of our own species, with nurture and environment arguably being a more important factor in determining behavior than sheer genetics, it in fact makes more sense to attribute socioeconomically "low ranking mothers being rougher with their offspring" to socioeconomic causes. Genetics certainly aren't irrelevant, but we shouldn't go in for the kind of biological determinism that's so in-vogue in our materialistic culture.

Except that humans evolved in stressful conditions, not in middle class suburbia. That means that stressed motherhood is standard and normal for humans. I don't think it's biological determinism to make that observation.

That's why I don't like this model of yours (and everyone's) which seems to assume that there's an ideal way of mothering which is most closely realized by middle and upper class mothers, but which, unfortunately, lower class mothers fall short of due to "stressors".

It's bigoted, but far more important is that it doesn't make sense. If motherhood evolved in stressful conditions, then mothers' behavior in stressful conditions can be assumed to be adaptive. Not a degraded version of adaptive behavior seen elsewhere in better conditions.

To be blunt, you're making certain assumptions here that I very much take issue with. Firstly, you're assuming that because Homo sapiens evolved and originally existed under conditions of adversity that the result must have been that they invariably, or more frequently, practiced an ungentle style of parenting. But perhaps other parenting behaviors were also selected for in our evolution, behaviors that offset and moderated, or in many cases obviated and supplanted "rough" and physically punitive forms of parenting. For instance, a more nurturing parenting strategy that promoted the attachment of offspring to parents, a style heavy on attentiveness and protectiveness. At any rate, what we see in other primates is a parenting style that prominently features attentiveness and firmness, but not violence.

Well, although you'll probably object to the charge and cite some reading that you've done, essentially you just seem to be assuming that primordial parents must have been "rough" with their offspring, that primitives living under primitive circumstances must be crude and violent in their parenting strategies. This seems to betray a certain stereotype of "primitives", i.e. it seems to be a tad bigoted.

Also, your assumptions seem to gloss over the social nature of our ancestors (they weren't the atomized specimens and "rugged individuals" that modern people living under capitalism frequently are), rather they were quite social, as was childrearing. And we know from the study of other primates that in groups insecurity and stress, and the stress of parenting, are reduced and consequently we don't see violent or abusive parenting behavior. Yes, early humans arose and existed in close-knit groups, not in modern atomized capitalist societies, and this indeed made a significant difference. This in fact helped to prevent "stressed motherhood" from becoming "standard". I don't think that it's social determinism to make such an observation.

You also go on to attribute what you believe to be the "rough" and "violent" parenting styles of animals and primitive humans to contemporary lower-socioeconomic-status parents. This is another leap. Well, even if the parenting of our primordial progenitors was "rough" that wouldn't justify assuming that modern poor parents are merely displaying normal hard-wired parenting behavior. It still may be the case that socioeconomic and sociocultural factors born of poverty and disenfranchisement may be inducing, accentuating, and exacerbating "violent" parenting, parenting that would be aberrant vis-a-vis the typical parenting of primordial humans in healthy social groups. Yes, your thinking here involves assumptions that reduce modern poor parents to your image of primitives. And of course this unfortunately can feed into a classism that does disadvantaged parents a further disservice.

In short and in sum, the kind of parenting you're misguidedly and erroneously trying to legitimate by characterizing as adaptive and normative is nothing of the kind, rather it's aberrant behavior resulting from manmade sociological factors that can and should be corrected. Although I certainly view you as a right-minded and goodhearted individual, unfortunately you've failed to recognize the complexity of the behaviors in question and have instead fallen into certain simplistic assumptions that inadvertently support a classist view of poor parents and that seem to justify corporal punishment and violent parenting. I hope that you'll rethink your biologistic views and perhaps come to a more sociological perspective. (I've been a bit critical here but please don't get the wrong impression that I've gone hostile or that you're being attacked, it's nothing personal. As I've commented above, I do in fact have a positive opinion of you as a right-minded and goodhearted individual.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.