I view 'human nature' more as tendencies we humans have when we're not in control. — Tzeentch

You and I have very different understandings of human nature.

Men almost never become pregnant. — unenlightened

Do you believe that's the only significant difference?

I have already given you personal testimony that people cannot always 'obviously' distinguish the sexes. This is why they have tests in sport, and why we had a female pope. Some species do have clear markers for sex of size, or plumage or shape, but humans do not. Manboobs are generally smaller than womanboobs, but small womanboobs can be smaller than merely medium manboobs.That is to say, the boobs thing is a statistical difference. Nor does one sex have colourful plumage or horns. — unenlightened

The fact that there are strong, aggressive women and physically weaker, less assertive men is no evidence at all that there are not significant biological differences between men and women. I've heard that some people eat peas with their knives. That doesn't make me think that there is no difference between a knife and a fork. I personally usually eat them with a spoon.

What is the need to differentiate the sexes by dress and hairstyle, then? — unenlightened

Why can't it be both - biology and society?

I'm not that proficient in the English language as a means of communication so can only hope having made the above text readable and understandable enough to communicate the gist of what I propose. — Seeker

Forgot to mention - your English is fine. Clear and easy to understand.

Excessive thinking habits are a leftover from our past. From an evolutionairy point of view excessive thinking makes sense as it enabled us to outsmart all our predators (and eachother) while manipulating and shaping our surroundings to work for us. It serves us as long as there's a (valid) outlet for it. It brought us unrivaled problem solving capabilities enabling us not only to outsmart 'the rest' but to become the dominant species as well. In a manner of speaking nature just forgot to add the mechanism to dumb it down again once we were safe, atleast not in all of us. — Seeker

As @Christoffer wrote, that's not how evolution works. There's not a one to one relationship between genes, traits, and evolutionary benefits. God or Darwin gave us brains, nervous systems, and whole bodies that work as a unified whole. Rationales for why particular traits came to be dominant are oversimplifications if not just wrong.

Beyond that, I don't see any reason to believe that we need our cognitive abilities less now than we did in the past.

If that were the case, there would be no need to differentiate them by artificial means such as designated clothing, hairstyles etc. — unenlightened

I don't think that's true. I don't deny there are social pressures to conform to accepted sexual behaviors, but that's clearly, to me at least, not all there is to it.

The whole interplay between gender and racism in power is important as well as the way in which stereotypes impact on life. This involves the concept of otherness. — Jack Cummins

I think overemphasizing the parallel between racial oppression and sexual discrimination is a mistake. The situations are different.

Do you mean to say that your soul, acting alone, based upon its nature, decided without constraint? Are you not then really just arguing that nature (as opposed to nurture) made you act as you did, meaning, basically, "you were born that way." — Hanover

I agree with much of what you say, but I don't think @Tzeentch's position requires that we be completely ruled by our nature. I think it would have to mean that our true self, our soul, comes from somewhere outside of either nature or nurture.

Thinking about the nature of biological differences and the political aspects of this has been an important area. It has led to people querying gender essentialism. It is likely that in the aftermath of postmodernism, there are still a lot of questions, especially the interplay of biology, culture and politics. — Jack Cummins

I think what you write is true, but that doesn't mean that those "querying gender essentialism" have got it right. Denying who we irrefutably are for political purposes is not liberation, it's foolishness.

Culture exaggerates sexual differences where they statistically occur, and invents them everywhere else. — unenlightened

I don't think biological sexual differences are just "statistical." I think they are obvious and significant. To deny this is to ignore the evidence of your senses. That doesn't mean we are destined and condemned to living out societal expectations, but it's not some trivial artifact of our troglodyte past.

Always good to be able to use "troglodyte" in a post.

I suppose you could view it as a radical free choice position. — Tzeentch

I believe one can only explore that which is truly authentic to the self when one is free of external pressures on the mind. That includes both nature and nurture, and thus societally-constructed gender identities, whether they're traditional or trans.

In terms of identity men and women or trans do not exist. Those terms are societal shorthand - useful tools to make communicating a bit easier. But all that exists are unique individuals. The second the individual starts to accept these generalizations as actually defining them, the soul loses its wings. — Tzeentch

In order for there to be "radical free choice" or anything near it, there would have to be no human nature. Nothing built in. We would have to be born as blank slates.

this is a prime example of someone who isn't patient enough to read carefully. — Susu

I did read carefully, but I don't agree with you. I think making a big deal out of gender identity as something different from biological sex is potentially dangerous for impressionable and vulnerable young people. Once you are grown up, you can do whatever you want, call yourself whatever you want, but I don't think society necessarily has any obligation to go along with your self-designation if it is disruptive.

One of my sister's children started identifying as non-binary when they were in high school. I only see them once or twice a year. I hug them with all the rest of the family. I use their new name. I try to be careful about pronouns. They're my family. I love them. On the other hand, it's been a hard few years for my sister and her husband.

So really what is a man and what is a woman? — Susu

I am not unsympathetic to people who have gender dysphoria and I have no trouble with them identifying themselves differently. For the rest of us - males have penises and testicles and females have vaginas and ovaries, among other things. Healthy adult females can bear children.

Most importantly - children should not be encouraged to modify their bodies by surgery or hormonal treatments. Only in extraordinary circumstances should they be allowed.

And that last line captures my feelings about this topic; when the individual simply accepts biological drives as facts of life, or accepts being put into a box by societal pressures, it's like the soul loses its wings - it loses a part of its essence, that part which in Plato's terms could be called divine and immortal. — Tzeentch

We've laid out three metaphors here, all of which are a bit off. I don't think the horse controlled by his rider works. I don't see my body's physical aspect as something that has to be wrestled into compliance. Then there's Plato's winged horse of the soul losing it's wings and falling to the ground to be shackled to the limitations of it's body. Putting the soul as our "true" self and our body as a fallen remnant doesn't make sense to me. Even though I like it, my metaphor of the wave isn't quite right either. It could only work if I am the wave.

Biology is destiny for those who do not develop the capacity to understand and control their biological makeup and instinctual and subconscoius drives. As Plato argues, the reasoning faculty of man should be in firm control over the temperamental and desiring parts of the mind. — Tzeentch

What you've written makes a lot of sense to me, although I think the position taken in the above quoted text is greatly overstated. If we control our biological makeup, it is the way a surfer controls a wave, not the way a rider controls a horse.

A few weeks ago, we had a thread about mental processes that included discussion of Pinker's "The Language Instinct." Two explanations for how language develops in humans were discussed 1) Pinker's contention that there are genetically established brain locations and functions that code a universal grammar common to all humans and 2) A view that sees language as one expression of a more general cognitive ability. Both approaches include a major role for learning from experience, but the second puts a much heavier emphasis on empirical learning.

Seems to me the discussion we are having here runs parallel to that one. Here, I am at least a tentative spokesman for the first view as it applies to moral behavior and you support one that is similar to the second view.

You quote Karen Wynn:

The early emergence of the evaluation of social actions—present already by 3 months of age—suggests that this capacity cannot result entirely from experi­ence in particular cultural environments or exposure to specific linguistic practices, and it suggests that there are innate bases that ground some components of our moral cognition. — Karen Wynn

I see this as a very moderate expression of an argument for a genetic component to moral behavior. She doesn't make any definitive statement. She says her results suggest a genetic component. She says "...there are innate bases that ground some components of our moral cognition." That doesn't seem like any great leap to take from her studies. You, on the other hand, seem to reject even that moderate claim out of hand. You point out some hypothetical reasons why it might not be true, but don't provide any substantive refutation. I find that an unconvincing argument.

Currently I am uncertain of the relative contribution of inherited abilities and learning to human moral behavior, but Wynn's claim that her results are suggestive of a genetic component makes sense to me.

Here are a couple of clips from past @Wayfarer posts I think are relevant to your OP:

The God-realised being - Ramana Maharishi, another Indian sage, died 1960, was the archetype - realises that only God is real, and says that the apparent world of multiplicity and strife is actually māyā, an illusion, with which the mind has become entanged through avidya, ignorance. — Wayfarer

This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. Which actually dovetails nicely with some elements of Platonism, i.e. the 'unforgetting' (anamnesis) of the state of omniscience that obtained prior to 'falling' in to carnal existence. Note well however the mention of 'taboo' in the title. — Wayfarer

I think she begins with unexamined assumptions concerning concepts such as compassion , altruism and empathy. The question is , what is it about the way we think about certain aspects of human behavior that lead us to conclude from the fact that they are displayed in very young infants that they are ‘innate’? — Joshs

I checked the transcript. Altruism and empathy were not mentioned. Compassion was mentioned twice by an outside commentator, not Wynn. The video focused on children's behavior, not concepts. True, Wynn and others did indicate they thought the behaviors were innate. That doesn't seem like such a jump to me.

Do we leap to such conclusions concerning perceptual achievements of infants, or do we first look to see in what ways exposure to environmental stimulation in the womb and out of it may lead to the infant’s construction of perceptual skills? I dont think so, and I think the reason has to do with our woefully poor understanding of the relation between affective phenomena and perceptual-cognitive skills. — Joshs

Again, the report doesn't mention affect or emotion. The focus is on behavior. Why would you jump to the conclusion that the behavior we see is related to events in the womb? These are very young children. They don't have language yet. Do you really think they were taught the behaviors they act out?

the only aspect of morality humans inherit is the capacity , and need, to construe meaningful pattens in events. — Joshs

And the evidence for this is....?

This is learned, not innate. — Joshs

Sez you. Not Wynn. I'm not saying every question is answered, but you haven't provided much to work with.

Do you agree the correlation I describe exists? — hypericin

I don't know and I don't think you do either, but that's beside the point. As I noted, even if it exists, it isn't evidence for your position.

Oh? Great. Why don't you elaborate? — hypericin

I don't see any necessary connection between the conditions you describe and the results you claim.

Do you have any idea how an experience of a non-person God could translate into accepting a religion with person Gods? — Art48

I described my personal experience and how I might interpret it. Other people could experience and interpret it differently. As I noted, I don't make any claim to certainty.

Forgot to say - in order to notify someone that you have responded, you have to either use the @ function (see top of response box) or type @T Clark with double quotes (") on each side of the name. If you don't do that, people won't know you responded.

It is not really a moral code but an inborn instinct. — David S

Speaking of language, in "The Descent of Man," Charles Darwin wrote:

Human language is an instinctive tendency to acquire an art. It certainly is not a true instinct, for every language has to be learned. It differs, however, widely from all ordinary arts, for man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children; while no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake, or write.

I think something similar could be true for moral understanding. In "What is an Instinct" William James wrote:

Nothing is commoner than the remark that Man differs from lower creatures by the almost total absence of instincts, and the assumption of their work in him by “reason.”...[But] the facts of the case are really tolerably plain! Man has a far greater variety of impulses than any lower animal; and any one of these impulses, taken in itself, is as “blind” as the lowest instinct can be; but, owing to man’s memory, power of reflection, and power of inference, they come each one to be felt by him, after he has once yielded to them and experienced their results, in connection with a foresight of those results…

…It is plain then that, no matter how well endowed an animal may originally be in the way of instincts, his resultant actions will be much modified if the instincts combine with experience, if in addition to impulses he have memories, associations, inferences, and expectations, on any considerable scale…

…there is no material antagonism between instinct and reason…

I just remembered this. A possible scientific explanation for ESP and a worrisome sign for the future.

"Galway Girl" is a song by Steve Earle I really like. Here's his performance:



Whoda thunkit, the song is very popular in Galway, Ireland. It's been recorded by a bunch of Irish performers. Here's a wonderful performance in, yes, Galway:

That is so cool. — Benkei

I agree. I first saw the show 10 years ago and I can't get it out of my mind. Whenever I see a baby, I think of how much more is going on in their minds than we can see.

When I have a chance I will try to check it out. If you can can you give me a short summary of what the book is about? — dclements

It's a book of examples of purported psychic phenomena which, on examination, were shown not to be authentic. Some of the examples were poorly designed and implemented, but sincere, scientific studies. Others were bogus claims and performances by so-called psychics. Here's what Amazon says:

In this lively collection, Gardner examines the rich and hilarious variety of pseudoscientific conjectures that dominate the media today. With a special emphasis on parapsychology and occultism, these witty pieces address the evidence put forth to support claims of ESP, psychokinesis, faith healing, and other pseudoscience.

Question: can you offer a better explanation? — Art48

I forgot to answer this. I don't know if this is better or not. I think a direct experience of transcendent phenomena is common, although obviously not universal. What does that mean? For me it is a sense that I belong in the universe. That we grew up together. That the world is a welcoming place. A sense of gratitude. I think that could be called a god, although not a personal one. I have talked to Christians who have what I would call similar experiences, although they probably would disagree.

I recognize that is no kind of rigorous evidence.

The OP is my attempt to understand a phenomena I've witnessed many times. — Art48

I don't understand how you can observe this personally. It may be based on observation, but it is made up mostly of assumptions about children's motivations and thoughts, which are not directly observable.

After the infant learns there are people and objects external to herself, in time she naturally attributes certain properties to the parent(s), qualities such as source of comfort and protection, as source of knowledge and instruction, as able to do wonderful things (feed her, give her toys, take her to the ocean or mountains for vacation). As she grows, she learns that the parent isn’t ideal, that the parent doesn’t fit the mold perfectly. Sometimes the parent makes her go to bed early, eat her spinach, takes her to the doctor for a needle.

If the parent ceases to occupy the mold, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the mold collapses. Quite the contrary, the child has built the mold in her mind where it may continue existing. But it’s empty.

In time, the person fills the mode with Jesus or Allah or Krishna. — Art48

The OP presents a thesis, a possible explanation, but doesn't not present a proof. — Art48

I have no problem with that, although I think you're theory is probably wrong.

Consider this evidence: The relationship of extreme power between parent and child is more prevalent in more conservative societies and households, and far more prevalent in the past. The more this extreme relationship holds, the more religiosity we observe. Corresponding with liberalization, and the softening of the parent-child relationship, we see a corresponding trend towards secularism. — hypericin

I don't see that as evidence for your point at all.

I would add that a (typically) a parent occupies a overwhelming position of power in relation to their child. The parent decrees what is right and wrong, dispenses reward and punishment, at their whim as does the God of the OT. This power differential creates in your terms a mold which inevitably the parent cannot actually fill. But as you say, the mold remains, and is fulfilled by personal gods. — hypericin

As noted earlier by myself and others, no evidence has been provided that this is really the way things work. It doesn't seem likely to me.

According to Wikipedia:

Chimpanzees are the closest living primate to humans genetically. They are more dimorphic in size than humans. They have hierarchical, male-dominated societies. Even so, dominant males do not normally restrict access to females for mating by other males. Bonobos are a subspecies of chimpanzee. While they are not monogamous, their societies are matriarchal and males do not compete physically for mates.

I am curious about what genuinely motivates the neo-Luddite perspective. — Bret Bernhoft

Calling it "neo-Luddite" gives a pejorative tint to reasonable skepticism. I think humanity is at a very dangerous stage. Our science has developed technologies that can change the very nature of our world and all of humanity. Examples - genetic modification of organisms including people, cloning, artificial intelligence, nuclear weapons, virtual reality, nanotechnologies, pandemics. People who develop technologies have never shown any particular social conscience. Science generally works for whomever pays, which means that profit may be more important than human well-being. Scientists will often lie and cheat when it suits their purposes.

Suspicion of science and technology and its effects is not necessarily unreasonable.

I neglected to link to you in my post above.

When this subject comes up, I often discuss the work of Karan Wynn on the cognitive abilities of very young children. Here's a link to Wynn's publications page:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZBkyZBIAAAAJ&hl=en

Here's a link to an interesting 60 Minutes piece on her work with moral judgement in children:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

It's 13 minutes long and it changed my thinking about human nature.

If you really did it, it was a rotten thing to do.

I provided it to those who are capable of searching Google Scholar. Those who can't are just screwed. — Tate

I did search as you indicated. The first item I came across is the one I quoted in a previous post that contradicts your position. Here's a link to my post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13479/why-is-monogamy-an-ideal/p2

Monogamous animals are usually sexually monomorphic. We're dimorphic, so our monogamy is unusual. — Tate

You have not provided any evidence for this claim.

I recommend a book by Martin Gardner - "Science, Good, Bad, and Bogus." It discusses many claims of scientific proof for psychic powers which have been shown to be false. Sometimes the problem was caused by bad science performed in good faith, but often it was a case of fraud. It's a good book. Gardner focuses on the types of errors investigators make in psychic experiments.