TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 THE biggest subject Stef deals with is parenting, as he suggests that bad parenting (or more specifically - violent and abusive parenting) is the reason for most, if not all, violence and aggression in the world. Stef is arguing for the 'blank slate'; that the mind has no innate traits, and that people are born 'good' or 'innocent', and are corrupted by society and culture. When Stef gets into his dogmatic 'Parent Mode', he becomes a typical speaker for the Parenting Industrial Complex. Here is a representative quote from a beseiged mother: "I'm overwhelmed with parenting advice. I'm supposed to do lots of physical activity with my kids so I can instill in them a physical fitness habit so they'll grow up to be healthy adults. And I'm supposed to do all kinds of intellectual play so they'll grow up smart. And there are all kinds of play - clay for finger dexterity, word games for reading success, large motor-play, small motor-play. I feel like I could devote my life to figure out what to play with my kids." Most studies of parenting are useless; they are useless because they do not control for heritability They measure some correlation between what the parents do, how the children turn out, and assume a causal relation that the parenting 'shaped' the child -- they may say things like parents who talk a lot to their kids may have kids that grow up to be articulate, or parents who spank their kids may have kids that grow up to be violent, and so on. Very few of them control for the possibility that parents pass on genes that increase the chances their child will have particular traits, like being articulate, or being violent, and so on. Stefan has also made a bold claim that abusing ones child can not only make them more violent, but it can lower their IQ. IQ can be lowered by many things (including neglect and abuse). However, it does not follow from the fact that group X and Y have average differences in IQ, and that Z causes average differences, that Z is the principle cause of the difference between X and Y (as there are a myriad of other possible causes). Let us consider the IQ differences in the White, Black, and Asian populations of America. When Socioeconomic status is controlled for, there is still a 12 point IQ gap between Blacks and Whites. SAT scores are a good proxy for IQ (because they strongly correlate with both IQ tests and the general intelligence factor). Blacks whose families earn more than $200,000 a year have SAT scores lower than whites whose families earn under $20,000 a year. High SES families have very low rates of abuse and neglect, so this would seem especially unlikely to be an underlying cause of average differences. Furthermore, in transracial adoption studies where Blacks, Whites, and Asians were raised by white middle class families, by age 18 the same gaps in IQ were found. This again makes it highly unlikely that differences in rates of abuse/neglect would be the underlying cause of IQ gaps. There is something else I have noticed - Whenever Stefan goes into the topic of parenting, he consistently brings up the percentage of parents that do 'spank' their kids, which he says is around 90%. Now, regardless of the legitimacy of that statistic, Stefan also continuously acknowledges that the world is becoming generally less violent over time (to suggest that people are becoming more 'moral'), and there is truth to this. Now, this does not follow, as Stefan's suggestion that the majority of parents who spank their children is reason for the insane violence in the world contradicts the fact that the world has become less violent. Does Stefan ever question where 'aggression' and 'violence' originate in our species? Because I am quite sure that the firct act of aggression by a homo sapien was not influenced by the supposed 'sin' of being beaten as a child, it was a natural action in a world to take advantage of - it is our nature. 'Violence' and aggression are in our biology, they are a natural part of our evolution - they are NOT social contructs.
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I certainly understand your skepticism, and if you want to find the flaws in the many studies I have cited, or the experts I have interviewed, I am certainly happy to hear them. It will take a little bit more than calling me " dogmatic" though. http://www.fdrurl.com/bib
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 This has been one of the main points I've focused on in my posting on this forum - nature vs. nurture as it relates to exploitive, neglectful and abusive behavior. And we're back to it yet again and always will come back to it I expect. Stef's view is based on a pretty strong belief in nurture as the root of violence and exploitation. Although, to his credit, when it comes to psychoapthy/sociopathy, he does say he is a mild agnostic who simply leans toward the nurture side in his series The Fascists that Surround You - a view that I find moderate enough to accept if that mild agnosticism was reflected more often in his work. My view is that this is an open question that requires a lot more research (and I constantly promote the field that should provide a platform for that research, ponerology). Stef does promote some great research about the effects of abuse. But selective use of research can back up one side of an argument without really proving your case. That's why I've pointed to some researchers and authors who focus on the other side that I'd like to see get equal time here. Overall, I love the focus of FDR on improving the world and the passion for it that people have here. I also love the work Stef does on promoting awareness of and tools to reduce child abuse. This is something we should all applaud. But I do wish he didn't extend this to basing his entire philosophy on the belief that child abuse is the whole story and the whole cause for the problems of our world. I think it's one of the main causes, but not the only one. As you bring up, TronCat, we have a first mover problem here where we have to wonder where the original abusive people came from if the abuse only comes from poor parenting. This is a complex topic that should not be oversimplified As we've been discussing in this thread, my view on all this is a more nuanced and complex evolutionary one. I think it is a larger paradigmatic view than Stef's, which encompasses, but also is broader than, his.
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure where I said that child abuse is responsible for all the problems in the world, perhaps you could remind me... I mean, an earthquake is a problem, but I don't think it's traceable to child abuse.
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure where I said that child abuse is responsible for all the problems in the world, perhaps you could remind me... I mean, an earthquake is a problem, but I don't think it's traceable to child abuse. Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE.
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 This has been one of the main points I've focused on in my posting on this forum - nature vs. nurture as it relates to exploitive, neglectful and abusive behavior. And we're back to it yet again and always will come back to it I expect. Stef's view is based on a pretty strong belief in nurture as the root of violence and exploitation. Although, to his credit, when it comes to psychoapthy/sociopathy, he does say he is a mild agnostic who simply leans toward the nurture side in his series The Fascists that Surround You - a view that I find moderate enough to accept if that mild agnosticism was reflected more often in his work. My view is that this is an open question that requires a lot more research (and I constantly promote the field that should provide a platform for that research, ponerology). Stef does promote some great research about the effects of abuse. But selective use of research can back up one side of an argument without really proving your case. That's why I've pointed to some researchers and authors who focus on the other side that I'd like to see get equal time here. Overall, I love the focus of FDR on improving the world and the passion for it that people have here. I also love the work Stef does on promoting awareness of and tools to reduce child abuse. This is something we should all applaud. But I do wish he didn't extend this to basing his entire philosophy on the belief that child abuse is the whole story and the whole cause for the problems of our world. I think it's one of the main causes, but not the only one. As you bring up, TronCat, we have a first mover problem here where we have to wonder where the original abusive people came from if the abuse only comes from poor parenting. This is a complex topic that should not be oversimplified As we've been discussing in this thread, my view on all this is a more nuanced and complex evolutionary one. I think it is a larger paradigmatic view than Stef's, which encompasses, but also is broader than, his. Have you ever read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker?
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure where I said that child abuse is responsible for all the problems in the world, perhaps you could remind me... I mean, an earthquake is a problem, but I don't think it's traceable to child abuse. Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE. Yes this is what I meant, Stefan. And this is the view of your beliefs that I have after watching and reading tons of your work. So if it's not actually what you believe, then at the least it should concern you that for some reason this is what I - and apparently others - are perceiving.
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Have you ever read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker? No I haven't, but I'm familiar with it. Overall, of course, we have different theorists that fall all along the spectrum on the nature vs. nurture argument. I think we're a ways away from having solid answers on the topic in most areas.
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 Have you ever read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker? No I haven't, but I'm familiar with it. Overall, of course, we have different theorists that fall all along the spectrum on the nature vs. nurture argument. I think we're a ways away from having solid answers on the topic in most areas. Perhaps, but let us not excuse the influence of cultural Marxism on academia, which continues to push egalitarian assumptions, regardless of evidence.
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Have you ever read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker? No I haven't, but I'm familiar with it. Overall, of course, we have different theorists that fall all along the spectrum on the nature vs. nurture argument. I think we're a ways away from having solid answers on the topic in most areas. Perhaps, but let us not excuse the influence of cultural Marxism on academia, which continues to push egalitarian assumptions, regardless of evidence. Let us not excuse any form of bias that distracts us from the evidence.
Lowe D Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IDcu5hGXq0]
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 Have you ever read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker? No I haven't, but I'm familiar with it. Overall, of course, we have different theorists that fall all along the spectrum on the nature vs. nurture argument. I think we're a ways away from having solid answers on the topic in most areas. Perhaps, but let us not excuse the influence of cultural Marxism on academia, which continues to push egalitarian assumptions, regardless of evidence. Let us not excuse any form of bias that distracts us from the evidence. I'm just saying that it's clear what the greater bias is, that's all.
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IDcu5hGXq0] That's cute, but I don't think it applies to this thread. What TronCat is focusing on is one of the very most fundamental issues behind Stefan's entire philosophy. It's well worth discussing.
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Ah, yes, very important business. Blablabla. Yes, indeed it is. Stefan realized that and has replied twice. And I think he would agree that the question of the extent to which child abuse underlies humanity's problems is very important business. That's probably why he has devoted hundreds of hours to discussing it.
MeGrownMind Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 When Stef gets into his dogmatic 'Parent Mode', he becomes a typical speaker for the Parenting Industrial Complex. Here is a representative quote from a beseiged mother: "I'm overwhelmed with parenting advice. I'm supposed to do lots of physical activity with my kids so I can instill in them a physical fitness habit so they'll grow up to be healthy adults. And I'm supposed to do all kinds of intellectual play so they'll grow up smart. And there are all kinds of play - clay for finger dexterity, word games for reading success, large motor-play, small motor-play. I feel like I could devote my life to figure out what to play with my kids." What is it about telling parents to quality-consult with their children, about telling parents to be honest with their children about their knowledge, or lack thereof, of morality, instead of obfuscating and guilting, etc, that is so typical to the Parenting Industrial Complex? Comparing Stefan's parenting advice to the kind that hawks playtime tips, seems like a gross and insulting exaggeration.
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 When Stef gets into his dogmatic 'Parent Mode', he becomes a typical speaker for the Parenting Industrial Complex. Here is a representative quote from a beseiged mother: "I'm overwhelmed with parenting advice. I'm supposed to do lots of physical activity with my kids so I can instill in them a physical fitness habit so they'll grow up to be healthy adults. And I'm supposed to do all kinds of intellectual play so they'll grow up smart. And there are all kinds of play - clay for finger dexterity, word games for reading success, large motor-play, small motor-play. I feel like I could devote my life to figure out what to play with my kids." What is it about telling parents to quality-consult with their children, about telling parents to be honest with their children about their knowledge, or lack thereof, of morality, instead of obfuscating and guilting, etc, that is so typical to the Parenting Industrial Complex? Comparing Stefan's parenting advice to the kind that hawks playtime tips, seems like a gross and insulting exaggeration. I think unfortunately TronCat has gotten a few separate topics mixed up in one thread: 1) To what extent is poor parenting at the root of humanity's greatest preventable problems? 2) Analysis of Stefan's particular parenting advice 3) Critique of the influence of cultural Marxism on academia. I would prefer if the thread focused on #1. I feel Stefan has overstated the role of poor parenting, even though I agree it's a crucial aspect of the problem. As for #2 and #3, I would prefer they had separate threads as they're really quite different issues.
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 When Stef gets into his dogmatic 'Parent Mode', he becomes a typical speaker for the Parenting Industrial Complex. Here is a representative quote from a beseiged mother: "I'm overwhelmed with parenting advice. I'm supposed to do lots of physical activity with my kids so I can instill in them a physical fitness habit so they'll grow up to be healthy adults. And I'm supposed to do all kinds of intellectual play so they'll grow up smart. And there are all kinds of play - clay for finger dexterity, word games for reading success, large motor-play, small motor-play. I feel like I could devote my life to figure out what to play with my kids." What is it about telling parents to quality-consult with their children, about telling parents to be honest with their children about their knowledge, or lack thereof, of morality, instead of obfuscating and guilting, etc, that is so typical to the Parenting Industrial Complex? It implictly means to promote the same idea that Stefan promotes; that nurture, culture, and environment are determining factors in the traits a child will develop into adulthood. It does not even begin to consider hereditarianism, at all.
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 When Stef gets into his dogmatic 'Parent Mode', he becomes a typical speaker for the Parenting Industrial Complex. Here is a representative quote from a beseiged mother: "I'm overwhelmed with parenting advice. I'm supposed to do lots of physical activity with my kids so I can instill in them a physical fitness habit so they'll grow up to be healthy adults. And I'm supposed to do all kinds of intellectual play so they'll grow up smart. And there are all kinds of play - clay for finger dexterity, word games for reading success, large motor-play, small motor-play. I feel like I could devote my life to figure out what to play with my kids." What is it about telling parents to quality-consult with their children, about telling parents to be honest with their children about their knowledge, or lack thereof, of morality, instead of obfuscating and guilting, etc, that is so typical to the Parenting Industrial Complex? Comparing Stefan's parenting advice to the kind that hawks playtime tips, seems like a gross and insulting exaggeration. I think unfortunately TronCat has gotten a few separate topics mixed up in one thread: 1) To what extent is poor parenting at the root of humanity's greatest preventable problems? 2) Analysis of Stefan's particular parenting advice 3) Critique of the influence of cultural Marxism on academia. I would prefer if the thread focused on #1. I feel Stefan has overstated the role of poor parenting, even though I agree it's a crucial aspect of the problem. As for #2 and #3, I would prefer they had separate threads as they're really quite different issues. They are all different issues, but when debating 'nurture vs. nature', and whether or not hereditarianism stands over either genetic determinism and social determinism, it's hard not to consider all these other things in the broader picture.
Lowe D Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Ah, yes, very important business. Blablabla.Yes, indeed it is. Stefan realized that and has replied twice. And I think he would agree that the question of the extent to which child abuse underlies humanity's problems is very important business. That's probably why he has devoted hundreds of hours to discussing it.Yes, indeed. Yes, very important business, indeed.
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 Ah, yes, very important business. Blablabla.Yes, indeed it is. Stefan realized that and has replied twice. And I think he would agree that the question of the extent to which child abuse underlies humanity's problems is very important business. That's probably why he has devoted hundreds of hours to discussing it.Yes, indeed. Yes, very important business, indeed. Do you have anything of value to contribute at all to this discussion?
Lowe D Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Ah, yes, very important business. Blablabla.Yes, indeed it is. Stefan realized that and has replied twice. And I think he would agree that the question of the extent to which child abuse underlies humanity's problems is very important business. That's probably why he has devoted hundreds of hours to discussing it.Yes, indeed. Yes, very important business, indeed.Do you have anything of value to contribute at all to this discussion?Yes.
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure where I said that child abuse is responsible for all the problems in the world, perhaps you could remind me... I mean, an earthquake is a problem, but I don't think it's traceable to child abuse. Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all[/font] violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE. Yes this is what I meant, Stefan. And this is the view of your beliefs that I have after watching and reading tons of your work. So if it's not actually what you believe, then at the least it should concern you that for some reason this is what I - and apparently others - are perceiving. "most, if not all" Do you understand that these are enormously different positions, and that trying to mix them together is intellectually irresponsible? For instance, if someone says, "most lung cancer is caused by smoking" (80-90% is), that is a defensible position. If someone says, "all lung cancer is caused by smoking," then you only have to find one instance where it was not caused by smoking to disprove the position. To lump the two positions together as if they are interchangeable is to create a silly strawman not really worthy of response.
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure where I said that child abuse is responsible for all the problems in the world, perhaps you could remind me... I mean, an earthquake is a problem, but I don't think it's traceable to child abuse. Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE. Yes this is what I meant, Stefan. And this is the view of your beliefs that I have after watching and reading tons of your work. So if it's not actually what you believe, then at the least it should concern you that for some reason this is what I - and apparently others - are perceiving. "most, if not all" Do you understand that these are enormously different positions, and that trying to mix them together is intellectually irresponsible? For instance, if someone says, "most lung cancer is caused by smoking" (80-90% is), that is a defensible position. If someone says, "all lung cancer is caused by smoking," then you only have to find one instance where it was not caused by smoking to disprove the position. To lump the two positions together as if they are interchangeable is to create a silly strawman not really worthy of response. Stefan, Since you're insisting on very very precise statements, I will further clarify. My perception is that you believe that poor parenting is the PRIMARY cause of violence and aggression perpetrated by humans. Now please respond to whether that one is accurate or not.
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure what you mean by the word 'primary' - do you mean the majority, or the most important of a minority group, or something else?
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure what you mean by the word 'primary' - do you mean the majority, or the most important of a minority group, or something else? Good question. And it raises a good point which is that I think we all agree that various factors contribute to different extents. None of us believe this is a one-factor issue. By primary, I guess I mean that it is the largest contributing factor in your mind, and, as such, merits the most attention and investment of resources. Is that fair to say? And if I'm still not accurate, feel free to just lay out yourself where you see poor parenting, as well as any other factors, in the whole picture of what is behind violence and aggression. How do these factors relate and to what extent do they each contribute?
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not sure where I said that child abuse is responsible for all the problems in the world, perhaps you could remind me... I mean, an earthquake is a problem, but I don't think it's traceable to child abuse. Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE. Yes this is what I meant, Stefan. And this is the view of your beliefs that I have after watching and reading tons of your work. So if it's not actually what you believe, then at the least it should concern you that for some reason this is what I - and apparently others - are perceiving. "most, if not all" Do you understand that these are enormously different positions, and that trying to mix them together is intellectually irresponsible? For instance, if someone says, "most lung cancer is caused by smoking" (80-90% is), that is a defensible position. If someone says, "all lung cancer is caused by smoking," then you only have to find one instance where it was not caused by smoking to disprove the position. To lump the two positions together as if they are interchangeable is to create a silly strawman not really worthy of response. Okay, so can you clarify your positon on parenting and the extent of its connection to violence in society then? Just so I know that I'm not strawmanning you. Because it seems that your position on the matter is close to social determinism.
KyleG Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vx8RxRn6dWU:400:300]
STer Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vx8RxRn6dWU:400:300] This video has been posted in almost every thread where this topic arises. Please look at past threads I've posted in where Fallon's work and what it means has been discussed ad nauseum. And let us not get sidetracked by it in this thread. Here we are wanting to get Stefan's particular view on where exactly and to what extent parenting fits in among the dynamics that lead to aggression and violence.
KyleG Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Stef is arguing for the 'blank slate'; that the mind has no innate traits, and that people are born 'good' or 'innocent', and are corrupted by society and culture. Where does he make this argument? Have you listened to any of his talks on epigenetics? Whenever Stefan goes into the topic of parenting, he consistently brings up the percentage of parents that do 'spank' their kids, which he says is around 90%. 80-90% in the US, not worldwide. It implictly means to promote the same idea that Stefan promotes; that nurture, culture, and environment are determining factors in the traits a child will develop into adulthood. It does not even begin to consider hereditarianism, at all. I don't think Stefan is a fan of culture. If it's culture, it's probably false. Things that are true are generally put in the category of science. When you refer to environment, are you considering the prenatal environment as well? What effects does a stressed mother have on a developing fetus? Will a child will grow up the same regardless of whether abuse is present or not? Environment is actually something parents have some control over. They cannot control the genetic markup they've been given.
Kowalski Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vx8RxRn6dWU:400:300] This video has been posted in almost every thread where this topic arises. Please look at past threads I've posted in where Fallon's work and what it means has been discussed ad nauseum. And let us not get sidetracked by it in this thread. Here we are wanting to get Stefan's particular view on where exactly and to what extent parenting fits in among the dynamics that lead to aggression and violence. The only argument I've ever heard made against this video is that it's anecdotal and isn't enough to constitute scientific proof of the nurture argument. Of course, that's true, but I've never seen strong evidence or arguments presented by proponents of nature for their own position, just an indirect undermining of the nurture argument through pointing out "there's not enough evidence to give a definitive cause yet". OK, there's not enough evidence - then stop asserting that nature is the primary cause of violence. Or provide some equally strong anecdotal evidence like a peacefully parented person with strong friend and family relationships going on a shooting spree despite being given all the factors necessary in life for good mental health.
STer Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vx8RxRn6dWU:400:300] This video has been posted in almost every thread where this topic arises. Please look at past threads I've posted in where Fallon's work and what it means has been discussed ad nauseum. And let us not get sidetracked by it in this thread. Here we are wanting to get Stefan's particular view on where exactly and to what extent parenting fits in among the dynamics that lead to aggression and violence. The only argument I've ever heard made against this video is that it's anecdotal and isn't enough to constitute scientific proof of the nurture argument. Of course, that's true, but I've never seen strong evidence or arguments presented by proponents of nature for their own position, just an indirect undermining of the nurture argument through pointing out "there's not enough evidence to give a definitive cause yet". OK, there's not enough evidence - then stop asserting that nature is the primary cause of violence. Or provide some equally strong anecdotal evidence like a peacefully parented person with strong friend and family relationships going on a shooting spree despite being given all the factors necessary in life for good mental health. If you read through my posts on all of this throughout the forums, you'll see two things: 1) I don't claim it's nature, not nurture. I claim we are at a point where we should all still be agnostic. Lo and behold, in "The Fascists that Surround You", even Stefan claims to be a "mild agnostic" on this issue. 2) I have repeatedly suggested people take a look at some of the resources that cover more of the nature side. I've especially focused on the book Evil Genes by Barbara Oakley, suggested Stefan consider interviewing her and zeroed in on one of her statements on page 95 the book that I find very intriguing and demanding of follow-up: "Oddly enough, one study has shown that murderers who have a normal family upbringing have even lower function in their right orbitofrontal cortical areas than murderers who were abused during childhood. Perhaps murderers "without a psychosocial 'push' toward violence require a greater neurobiological 'push.' In other words, children with less severe neurological problems may be helped by having a normal upbringing - but children with more severe neurological difficulties may not be." And here is the footnote for that statement: 12. Adrian Raine et al., "Reduced Prefrontal and Increased Subcortical Brain Functioning Assessed Using Positron Emission Tomography in Predatory and Affective Murderers," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 16 (1998): 319-32. What's clear is that, as I always predicted, this debate hits home and always circles back to the same points. This tells me it's pivotal to everything most FDR listeners care about and has vast implications. In the meantime, I'd still like to hear Stef clarify precisely what his view of the parenting/violence and aggression connection is as TronCat and I have been asking.
LovePrevails Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 I certainly understand your skepticism, and if you want to find the flaws in the many studies I have cited, or the experts I have interviewed, I am certainly happy to hear them. It will take a little bit more than calling me " dogmatic" though. http://www.fdrurl.com/bib I agree, Stef never said that children were a tabla rasa he said 70-80% of behaviour is adaptation to environment according to the latest science on nature vs nurture which he explains here:
Jose Perez Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Even if parenting was the "be-1% and end-1%" it would still be justified to focus on it. Why is that? Because of its moral nature and the fact that we have the necessary control (freewill) to change it. In the light of this, what is your purpose with the case you are making? Is it that we should focus on genetic engineering instead? You completely mischaracterize the function of parenting when you talk about certain activities and practices when interacting with children, etc. Children are not pets or robots. Current scientific studies of parenting also have no idea what constitutes child abuse – and to what extent parental behaviour constitutes abuse – and are therefore completely flawed, precisely because of the primitive stage of moral development that prevails in society – also in the academia – and the taboo of questioning parental virtue and authority. This is not a question of engineering nature, but a question of human action and responsibility in the light of facts and reasons that are clear as day, such as the power differential between parent and child.
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 "Does Stefan ever question where 'aggression' and 'violence' originate in our species? Because I am quite sure that the firct act of aggression by a homo sapien was not influenced by the supposed 'sin' of being beaten as a child, it was a natural action in a world to take advantage of - it is our nature." Given the environment in which Neandethal man lived, it's clear that violence was a natural action. Even so, that doesn't mean that using violence against one's child was the correct thing to do. Medieval doctors didn't use penicillin because it hadn't been discovered yet but, that doesn't mean that using leeches was the correct thing to do. Moreover, that an action is natural (generally speaking) does not indicate that the action is preferable, beneficial or correct. After all, it's natural to crave sugar but we all know what happens when people act on that craving in an environment where sugar is readily available. There is nothing at all about the fact that human beings are naturally capable of using violence that indicates humans should use violence or, that using violence is excusable as a means of controlling the behavior of other humans in the absense of self defense against the same. All it says is that human's are naturally capable of using violence. Apologists for the nature side of the argument often assert nature as an excuse for poor parenting, even in the face of strong evidence suggesting that violence is harmful to children and that humans aren't naturally inclined toward violence. Over the past forty odd years, the peaceful parenting movement has provided considerable evidence for the latter. With all that said, I think it's imperative that those who argue so strongly for nature and against nurture ask themselves what it would cost them personally to admit that environment is the single most influential factor in determining whether or not human beings will act irrationally on the violent capabilities they naturally possess.
Recommended Posts