Chimaera182 wrote:As for trading cultures, I'm not ready to give them the benefit of the doubt yet. Maybe deep down they still don't like the people they trade with, but because they're out to make a profit, it's in their best interests to trade with anyone they can.
There is no need to give any culture the "benefit of the doubt", I don't think one should base any opinions on such arbitrary and unreliable background. Instead, there is a large amount of anthropology and sociology to be read, and also if you like, people and places to visit. Many Westernes would be surprised if they knew more about native cultures in Africa, the Pacific Ocean or Central Asia. The human nature is not synonymous with Western culture behaviour patterns. And this takes me back to the question of "innate":
CM]
I have basically an assumption which is two fold:
1. All humans feel their culture and its values are superior to those of others.
2. That on specific issues like mortality wrote:
What you base these assumptions on? What evidence is there, what arguments? How do you explain that there are cultures that do not fit into these behaviour patterns? How do you explain that there are individuals in a given culture, that do not fit into these patterns?
Dottie though it may vary from human to human, the underlying fundementals are the same.
So if it may vary from individual to individual, what are the underlying fundamentals? Obviously the superiority of one's own culture cannot be innate in the human being, since all human beings do not share this view. So what then, is the underlying fundamental that often can result in culture-centric views?
Aegis]
Unlike what you said wrote:
I am not sure what exactly you disagree with me on. Do you mean mind set and behaviour are genetically preprogrammed from birth, or do you mean genetic predispositions that increases likelihood to react in a certain way in a certain type of situation, as I described above?
This particular aspect comes down to the very concept of nature vs. nurture. I happen to think nature tends to when out for the most part, with nurture playing the role of incubation.
When talking about nature v nurture, it is very important to define what we mean with "nature" and "nuture" and also, to realise that the whole concept of "nature v nurture" is a popular oversimplification of what the complex interaction between genes, biology and environment. Let me take an example. All humans have this gene, we call it gene A. Gene a is an intronless gene, which means it can expressed or not expressed. As you know, genes code for a protein, and the protein expression this gene codes for, influence a certain behaviour. When you were born, the gene were not expressed. But when you are 20 years old, you experience certain things that switch on gene A, so now it is expressed. Another person will not go through the same things, so gene A is never expressed in this person. Is this "nature" or "nurture"?
There is a vast amount of research done on the interaction between genes, biology, environment and behaviour. There are diseases that are 100% genetic, like Huntington's, Down's or Rhett's syndrome, but in normal behaviour, nothing is known that shows 100% genetic or 100% environmental conditioning. Basic personality traits consistently show 50/50 in twin and adoptions studies, higher order traits (ie traits that regulate more detailed behaviour) show higher environmental determination. Cognitive skills and styles, show about 50/50 too, depending on the skill in question. Many skills, like sematic skills, are highly sensitive to education, others like Working memory are genetically loaded to about 60-70%.
I am highly interested in the regulation of human behaviour, and both you and Fas are discussing this issue. The problem is that I don't understand what you mean. There is no evidence behaviours and attitudes as specific as Fas has described, are genetically predetermined. On the contrary, the evidence is that complex behaviours like thinking your culture is superior to others and wanting to impose your culture upon others, is mostly socioculturally determined. This you both seem to understand, since Fas is giving leave for individual variation and you talk about underlying factors. However, to claim that a certain behaviour or attitude is genetically determined without evidence, is a very strong and speculative claim. To claim that a certain behaviour and attitude is related to underlying background factor traits that are partly genetic, or claim that a certain behaviour and attitude is partly related to a generally human trait is not at all as speculative, but then you need to be able to describe and present arguments for why such a relationship should exist.
A lot of people eat apples. Would you say it is innate or bred into people to eat apples? No, of course not, since all humans do not eat apples. First, apples are not available everywhere and still, humans live there and second, all humans do not eat apples even if they are available. What is "innate" or "bred into people" here is the need for vitamins, ie that is the background factor in this case. Apples are a source of vitamins. People have a genetic predisposition to eat food containing vitamins, and apples is one option of several. If we live in an area where apples are avalible, do we inherit the selection for apples? No, humans learn what is suitable food by model learning. Contrary to many other species, the so called higher primates do not have a genetically determined instinct that tells them what is suitable to eat. So, is apple eating "nature" or "nuture"? And I would be happy if you @Aegis and/or Fas could apply this model to the behaviours we are discussing in this thread, since it is easier to understand what you mean if you specificy what you mean is underlying, what is genetically determined, what is interactive, etc.
). Very few people are willing to look at the darker aspect of humanity. We hold these ideals on such a high pedestal, that we don't see the little monsters that permeate everywhere else, and this, I believe, is what Fas was talking about when he said it was innate to human behaviour.
