Yes and hopefully not.
Orphanages that do no harm are great, I am even sure a few probably exist somewhere for a few lucky children.
I am sure for some children this is true, but not 70% of them. which is the incarceration rate.
You are arguing from an absolute, why?
The only true way to understand something is to experience it yourself. I can tell you not to touch fire or you will get burned, but you will never truly understand the nature of fire until you have experience with it. While certain beliefs are either picked up by children or otherwise taught that can in turn change the make up of their moral character, the majority of what they understand as morality comes from personal experience and how they personally see the world around them. Personal growth is not found in the lessons of society, but in the understanding of the nature of things around you and of yourself.
What's the difference? Where does jealousy come from if it's not taught?
If a moral compass is taught, then what principles underlie the differing conclusions we see from this thought experiment:
A trolley is coming down a track, and it’s going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one but save the five. Most people think that’s morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, “Doctor, we’ve got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?” No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they’re identical in that sense.
The key point here is - "do no harm." This applies to parents, to foster parents, to orphanages. Don't work to retard what nature is developing within the child. Orphanages differ from family life with either parents or foster parents in that they lack parental figures instead substituting adults who provide care but don't have the time to develop the close relationships with the children which enable the supposed tutoring of a moral conscience.
In 1952, ten-year-old Richard and his 12-year-old brother were delivered to the Home, a Presbyterian orphanage in rural North Carolina, after their mother committed suicide and their father was found too chronically drunk to care for them. They remained there until they graduated from high school. McKenzie's remembrance of those years is neither whitewashed nor nostalgic; he gives evidence that orphanages can be "a refuge and a source of inspiration" to neglected children. McKenzie, an author and professor of economics, has prefaced this work with responses from a survey of over 1000 living "alumni" of the Home supporting the positive attributes of institutional care: security, stability, permanence, direction, and a value system. McKenzie presents a compelling argument in favor of giving abused or homeless children an opportunity to begin a new life by escaping both their sordid past and their hopeless present. Highly recommended for both lay readers and policymakers.
Please, I show you respect by reading what you write and I try to engage your points, so could you return the favor? Your response completely neglects the selection effect I detailed in my comment. If you want to isolate the effect of "no parents" and see how it affects incarceration rates, then you need to control from kids who are already troubled, already carrying the baggage of mental illness, etc.
You need to come up with an explanation for how a moral conscience can develop in children when no parents are present to instill it. That's a pretty big point, don't you agree?
Home | moralfoundations.org
This is the most complete explanation of human moral behavior I have ever seen. It goes into the biological mechanisms of the formation of moral behaviors and strategies (and morality is, in the end, a survival strategy just like any other primate).
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.
I don't believe that. You make it sound as if empathy and concern for others was just a creation of society, but if that was the case why would it even cross the human brain to start teaching such things to children? It is the lack of brain development and experience which are the reasons for the behavior.
There is really no validity to the argument that morality and basic human capabilities like empathy are the creation of society. There is however much to support the argument that society is damaging to these basic capabilities.
Yes, but there are cases of feral children.
Fascinating, this particular child lived just like an animal. Do you think he possessed qualities like empathy?
Interesting link here.
10 Modern Cases of Feral Children - Listverse
I noticed how he gave compliments to liberals, but insulted every other group. :lol:
I will even quote the insult:
What utter garbage.
Another thing to keep in mind here is that the vast majority of "feral child" stories are either grossly exaggerated or completely made up. In most legitimate cases, the child is not raised in the wild from infancy to adulthood, but rather young childhood (5 or 6 years of age) onwards. Even then, they usually only live in that state for a few years before being rescued by someone.
Frankly, the damage that even such a short period of time cut off from human contact is capable of causing to a child's brain should more than speak to the necessity of social interaction in human development all by itself.
Have you read "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris? She does a nice job of demolishing positions that were widely held by psychologists.
Here's my point - all anyone needs do is find an instance which falsifies a widely held hypothesis and then the hypothesis crumbles. Did American orphanages turn out armies of sociopaths? The industrial or factory type of "parenting" from American orphanage caregivers was far different from that of parents, in terms of quantity and quality, and yet children raised in American orphanages in the past weren't all sociopaths.
Secondly, what exactly is the precise technique which parents must use to instill conscience building? What if a parent doesn't know how to do this, does this doom the child to being a sociopath?
One interesting aspect of Dr. Raine's research is that he correlated the PET brain images to the murderer''s personal history, in order to ascertain whether they were subjected to trauma, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, poverty, when they were children (a deprived environment for the development of personality). Of the murderers, 12 had suffered significant abuse or deprivation. It was discovered that murderer's coming from non-deprived households had much larger deficits in the orbitofrontal area of the brain (14 % on the average) than normal people and murderer's coming from deprived environments (see figure below).
What's really going on is a child following a developmental path which is largely determined by their genetic inheritance. Negative environmental influences can certainly have an effect and knock them about, sometimes inducing sociopathic traits, but a "neutral" environment of benign neglect, which is the default mode for most of human history, doesn't harm children.
Children aren't a blank slate, that theory is long dead since the age of actual science. Jealousy is innate to humanity.
I can speak from personal experience. I tried the hands off, do no harm approach and my kids turned into spoiled brats. When I got strict with them and started actively teaching them and communicating firm expectations, they became good children who are empathetic and highly emotionally intelligent for their age.
My oldest boy has autism and I have not only gotten him out of his shell with this method but he actually got himself a date.
I am responding with facts
Recently. Was pregnant and could not give birth. Operation cost of $ 1200.:shock: But for a pet cat it is not sad.:2sick1:Not neutered?
Wait, what? Now you've turned the tables and you're arguing against the Blank Slate when you were previously arguing in favor of it? Did I miss that ju-jitsu move? When did I switch roles and begin arguing in favor of Blank Slatism?
It looks to me like you're sending out ranging fire - going from extreme to extreme. A "hands off" approach isn't what is usually employed in orphanages. They all have rules, they all enforce behavior. The kids aren't free to do as they please. What the orphanages strive to do is "No Harm."
That's fantastic but to extrapolate from an autistic child to all children is an invalid logical leap.
Is that what you kids call it these days? Back in my day we called what you were doing "argument by assertion." Facts, huh? OK.
Recently. Was pregnant and could not give birth. Operation cost of $ 1200.:shock: But for a pet cat it is not sad.:2sick1:
yes, it grates against what you would like to see. How you feel about it is irrelevant. If you go further into Haidt's work, he tends to lean conservative in his praising. For example liberals tend to strongly emphasize 1 and 2 while ignoring 3-5. Conservatives tend to put equal weight on all five.
And honestly, as a liberal, when I read 3-5 I kind of go WTF, those have no value! but the reason is simply my brain is not formed in a way that I have the structures built for that kind of thinking. This is both good and bad for various reasons (but then again EVERYTHING in life is both good and bad for various reasons, so thats not a very insightful statement)
Number 6 was added because people complained, I will admit (I am not sure Haidt fully agrees with it), but liberty is a human want (we all want more freedom), just like people want more candy and nice cars. Its something we have to work to get (because life hands us nothing for free and the default state is deprivation of everything), so I am not sure it qualifies either.
The question would be did children growing up in orphanages have a higher statistical likelihood of developing anti-social personality disorder than children that grew up in traditional homes.
As an adoptive parent I can tell you that benign neglect in orphanages certainly can result in psychological and developmental issues.
I really have no interest in going further into his work after reading his trash he put down there. Psychologists have a tendency to piss me off because they bull**** endlessly and this guy is a great example of that.
This is what always amuses me about you. You have one of the strongest information filters I have ever seen.
I am beginning to think you misunderstood my original position and warped some of my statements out of proportion. Your debate style is a bit nit picky and I tend to be a big picture style thinker, so you bog me down in the minute details, which in the process of explaining those, I tend to forget my larger point until I switch my thinking mode back to what I tend to be good at. so the end result is a series of unlinked statements. If you want to understand my point, from my perspective, we need to stay big picture and with a mostly associative thought process.
He didn't provide me anything of value. He passed judgments, made observations that are obviously biased judging by number six and then goes I understand everyone. It's crap.
When you seek to address that question you need to account for the condition of the children entering orphanages. Comparing an anti-social kid whose parents can't control him any longer and lose custody of him to a normal child in a traditional home and then assigning life outcomes for these two classes of children to their rearing environment is an invalid comparison.
As can a number of other factors, ranging from irresponsible parental behavior, unrecognized predispositions, to outright harm to children via actions in the orphanage system. When an adoptive parent adopts, it's very difficult to pinpoint the root cause of a child's psychological and developmental issues. In contemporary America we no longer see middle and upper class (class here being used as a shorthand proxy for women who are not dealing with psychological issues of their own) girls being sent away to visit an aunt for 9 months where they can have a baby and turn it over to an orphanage.
I really have no interest in going further into his work after reading his trash he put down there. Psychologists have a tendency to piss me off because they bull**** endlessly and this guy is a great example of that.
case in point.
Our results suggest that libertarians are a distinct group that places lower value on morality as typically measured by moral psychologists
I'd suggest that you give Haidt's work more attention. It maps pretty damn well to observable reality. This puts him into a different league than most psychologists who do bull**** endlessly. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
If you want to piss off liberals, quoting Haidt's work can be beneficial, it just depends on how harshly you can get the point across. For instance, look at how tacomancer phrased the distribution of morality and now watch this: liberals lack two moral values - they're simply deficient and they overcompensate by going through the roof on issues like equality, which means that conservatives can well understand the views of liberals because we overlap with their moral compass but liberals are completely baffled by how conservatives think because liberals are morally stunted. That will insult most liberals. The trick is to phrase it correctly, but still honestly report the findings.
His conclusion is wrong.
Libertarians are morally consistent as they form a foundation to build from. That is the entire reason they are in between conservatives and liberals on pretty much everything he comes across. If he even bothered to look up the philosophy he would know that.
I'd suggest that you give Haidt's work more attention. It maps pretty damn well to observable reality. This puts him into a different league than most psychologists who do bull**** endlessly. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
If you want to piss off liberals, quoting Haidt's work can be beneficial, it just depends on how harshly you can get the point across. For instance, look at how tacomancer phrased the distribution of morality and now watch this: liberals lack two moral values - they're simply deficient and they overcompensate by going through the roof on issues like equality, which means that conservatives can well understand the views of liberals because we overlap with their moral compass but liberals are completely baffled by how conservatives think because liberals are morally stunted. That will insult most liberals. The trick is to phrase it correctly, but still honestly report the findings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?