Ostinato Rubato wrote:ajaxlepinski wrote:I'm not saying that psychologists and social scientists are always wrong but, they are certainly not always right.
It is impossible to prove that people are born with a certain set of values, sexual orientation or, sense of right and wrong.
It's more likely that, people are born with a certain capacity for intelligence - that capacity determines how well they will be able to understand themselves, how well they will interpret the world around them and how well they will be able to survive in it.
Hence, the expression: "He's not playing with a full deck".
It's not impossible to prove that people are born with certain values. They've studied it extensively even in toddler interaction, where you see what the values of individuals are before they can even necessarily verbally communicate. There's a nature/nurturer dynamic always, but morality in general is deeply embedded in human genetics. It's not a cultural phenomena. Culture will then allow it to manifest in various ways, but there's a reason why liberal/conservative thinking is a truism around the world. It's mostly inherent, and what we end up arguing and associating with or straying away from are the manifestations that culture enables, like the branding of our two political parties. That's a secondary phenomena to the base moral underpinnings.
Which is why you have moderates who lean a certain way, but don't always agree how the political apparatus operates on certain issues, and will struggle with the "team" direction.
Liberals like the free flow and free access of information, and for that reason they question rigid structure. To the liberal it's not adaptable enough to be updated when needed. Conservatives like the preservation of tried and true things, and don't like things being messed with before taking a lot of long hard looks at it. Changing what works brings unintended consequences.
These two ways of thinking is probably as old as our great grandmother Lucy.
Leaving things the same can also bring unintended consequences... even if they appear to be working for the moment.
No one will argue that, selfish behavior is a survival trait for children.
However, the same child that steals a piece of candy from another on one day, may on a different day, give their only piece of candy to another child. It all depends on their mood, motives and their capacity for understanding.
I have watched a few documentaries about child development and I am certainly no expert but, the researchers never seem to consider that children will have different reactions to the same stimulus at different times, depending on their mood - little kids are constantly changing their personal zeitgheist/mood and sometimes the change can be dramatic.
Culture, Capacity for Learning, Economics and Environment all play a part in how our behavior develops, how it is allowed to develop, and how our behavior finally manifests itself as a adult.
Certainly, infants and small children prioritize their own well being and personal space. Their behavior revolves around survival and their reactions to testing is predicated on mood (am I hungry or not, am I hot or cold, do I want that or, can I give it away, why am I here, why is this person prodding me, I'm in a mood to play but, this scientist wants me to do this but I'd rather do that, etc).
I would propose that, along with being born with a certain IQ capacity, some people are born with the inability to grow out of the survival based, selfish frame of mind.
Remaining selfish and growing up to adulthood, in a poor socioeconomic environment, is not going to play our well on any level.
However, in a wealthy socioeconomic environment, remaining selfish may not be as much of a detriment to one's success and it may even be considered an asset.
From what perspective are the researchers analyzing child behavior? Rich man or poor man?
Ha! I digress.
Maybe kids can be labeled at a young age as being good or bad. I just see too many variables to be certain.
