Thursday, October 15, 2020

JV Charmary - Religion Makes Children More Selfish, Say Scientists

Morality is often associated with religion, but new research reveals that children from religious households are actually less generous than kids from a secular background.

Why are religious people less moral? One factor is a psychological phenomenon known as ‘moral licensing’: a person will justify doing something bad or immoral – like being racist – because they’ve already done something ‘good’, such as praying. “It’s an unconscious bias,” Decety explains. “They don’t even see that’s not compatible with what they’ve been learning in church.”




'
"... and if granted absolute power, I promise I won't abuse it, ever.." 





46 comments:

Ralph Musgrave said...

So what's wrong with racism - assuming your using the word as per Oxford dictionary, which is simply the idea that some races are better than others? Some psychologists claim (shock horror) that some races have higher IQs than others. Should those psychologists be locked up?

This whole "racism" business is more nuanced and complicated than is commonly thought.

Kaivey said...

Modern research seems to be showing that IQ is the same throughout the races. When I come across a white supremecist on twitter I love to wind them up by saying that China is leaving the West for dust because Asians are more intelligent than white people. They don't know how to respond to it because they love to believe all the faulty identical twins studies which show they white people are more intelligent than black people, but the same research shows that Asians are more intelligent than them. They can't cope with it because these white supremecists hate the Chinese too. They often block me. They certainly lose their temper.

Race and class DON'T matter, say scientists: New research shows healthy babies from any country or background develop at the same speed

Babies are born with equal intelligence no matter what their class or race is, research has found.

The idea that race or class determines brain power has been dealt a killer blow after a seven-year global study found babies can thrive regardless of their background.

Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6625955/New-research-shows-race-class-not-affect-babys-development.html

Matt Franko said...

If you believe Darwinism is true you have to be racist... you have to be... racism is textbook Darwin 101...

Matt Franko said...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwin-expression-and-the-lasting-legacy-of-eugenics/

Matt Franko said...

“At once driven by claims of biological determinism and supported by the authoritarian heft of British empiricism, Francis Galton pioneered an insidious form of human scrutiny that would come to be known as eugenics. The word itself comes from the Greek word eugenes (noble, well-born, and “good in stock”), though Galton’s own definition is a bit more sinister: For him, it was a science addressing “all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race, also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage.” The idea of social betterment through better breeding (indeed, the notion of better anything through breeding) led to a horrifying era of social supremacism in which “deviation” would come to be classified across a broad spectrum of race, religion, health, wealth, and every imaginable kind of human infirmity. Grossly and idiosyncratically defined—even a “propensity” for carpentry or dress-making was considered a genetically inherited trait—Galton’s remarkably flawed (and deeply racist) ideology soon found favor with a public eager to assert, if nothing else, its own vile claims to vanity.“

Racicism didn’t even exist before all the Darwin bullshit was accepted... didn’t even exist..,

Matt Franko said...

“ Decety’s team of psychologists assessed altruism using ‘the dictator game’: each child was given 30 stickers and told to choose how many to share with an anonymous child from the same school and similar ethnic group. This task reflects choices in ecology – allocating limited resources ”

iow “out of stickers!”... person designing the activity probably a “out of money!” moron too... probably reads Zero Hedge...

Ralph Musgrave said...

Re Kaivey’s claim that IQ is the same for all races, there are obvious differences when it comes to skin colour, height, hair colour, susceptability to different diseases, etc, etc, etc. It would thus be odd if one particular organ, the brain, was identical for all races.

lastgreek said...

"Some psychologists claim ..."

"Psychologists" :(

Andrew Anderson said...

I was raised Roman Catholic and was pretty selfish as long as I felt I was obeying its rules. But puberty came and made it clear that obeying was impossible - at least for long. So much then for the RCC.

Otoh, by reading the entire Bible, including the "bloody" Old Testament, I found such things as:

The generous man will prosper and he who waters will himself be watered Proverbs 11:25

So skip the middlemen and read the Bible yourself is my hard-learned advice.

Greg said...

Any doctrine that focuses on “saving yourself”
is going to have selfish people as followers

Prosperity gospel likewise

Greg said...

Concept of race, thus racism, preceded Darwin by over 100 years

Peter Pan said...

Are there differences in IQ between people living in London, and Bristol?
What about rural versus urban dwellers?
Sea level versus 5000 meters?
Tropics versus temperate?

Tom Hickey said...

"So what's wrong with racism."

Regarding humans biologically there is only one one race (species) at present genetically, the human race, homo sapiens sapientis. Humans fall under the genus animal>primate>human categorization. There are no longer even sub-species with the human race (species) owing to lack of genetic difference. All humans are now in the same category based on genetic similarity and difference. While there are differences, they are not enough to merit biological categorization.

So-called racial difference is due to ethnicity, which is a combination of genetics and cultural diversity.

This is diversity is declining owing to intermarriage in a global era of gene swapping. The progression used to be family, clan, tribe and nation but that distinction is fading.

When asked what category I belong to I respond, "human being."

Andrew Anderson said...

Whatever racism I might have absorbed while growing up in the South has been largely negated by reading* the Bible.

It does seem that God is breeding the human race for righteousness but that's independent of physical appearance or characteristics, including what humans call "intelligence."

*.e.g. An Ethiopian rescued Jeremiah from the pit and was thus one of the rare survivors of the Babylonian Captivity since God preserved him.

Matt Franko said...

“ Any doctrine that focuses on “saving yourself”
is going to have selfish people as followers ”

Ooooooooo.....

Matt Franko said...

“ 4 nor yet to be heeding myths and endless genealogies,”

There is nothing important or profound in our genetic information...

Matt Franko said...

“ Concept of race, thus racism, preceded Darwin by over 100 years”

I’ll check you on that ofc....

Greg said...

“There is nothing important or profound in our genetic information...”



LOL! Oh really? That’s like saying that there is nothing important in the working blue print of a building, or in an accurate map of anywhere.


I’ll bet you wouldn’t be making that claim if the only evidence Trump had of Obama/Biden spying on him was some DNA on a telephone known to be used in a phone call and the DNA was determined to be 90%consistent with Obama.


Check out Linnaeus and his concepts of race

Peter Pan said...

Information that is important for biological function, but not profound.

Greg said...

What would count as profound information?

Matt Franko said...

“We’re not out of money!” This is NOT profound either..,

It’s all material oriented stuff Greg... it’s not profound or highly important...

Greg said...

So material oriented stuff isn’t important?

Matt Franko said...

No not really... in long run no...

Look all this “money!” stuff can be understood by a properly trained person with Bachelor Science Accounting in about 15 minutes... I’ve done it myself...

Something that can be understood in about 15 minutes is not “profound” sorry...

The reason WHY something so easily understood is not understood.. THAT is perhaps profound though imo...

Matt Franko said...

We through out half of our food..,

Peter Pan said...

Profound information relates to spirituality. Genes code for survival as that was the filter they had to get past. Refinement through attrition.

As sub-units, genes are better at survival than phenotypes.

Greg said...

So there is nothing profound in the non spiritual world eh?

BTW the notion of a bifurcated spiritual/non spiritual world is not a settled question. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it “spiritual”

Peter Pan said...

It's about the feels. Finding profundity in some bit of information makes it spiritual.

Who worships genes?
Who expresses reverence for evolution?

Not me.

"I believe in the cosmos. All of us are linked to the cosmos. Look at the sun. If there is no sun, then we cannot exist. So nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred. Trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals." - Mikhail Gorbachev

If you're a worshiper of concrete and glass, you'll feel differently.

Greg said...

Definition of profound

1a : having intellectual depth and insight
b : difficult to fathom or understand

2a : extending far below the surface
b : coming from, reaching to, or situated at a depth : deep seated

3a : characterized by intensity of feeling or quality
b : all encompassing : COMPLETE
profound sleep
profound deafness


You don’t have to be a worshiper of anything to find profundity. I’m out of the worshiping business. I have deep appreciation of many things
and I no longer buy into a bifurcated spiritual/non spiritual world. There are many mysteries but there is almost nothing we don’t have the capacity to understand with the right “tools”.

Genes were absolutely a profound concept and discovery at time. We take them for granted now as our understanding and use has increased

If you think that the understanding of biological function which has been gleaned over the last 2 centuries isn’t profound I don’t know what to say. Yes profound over time might become old hat but limiting profound to only “spiritual “ realm (whatever you mean by that) is silliness

And Matt

For you to sit here and harp for years on our material systems and how only science trained people, who have the proper ability to discern, should have a say in these things and then suddenly claim that material oriented stuff isn’t important..... is quite odd

Your claims that Darwinism led to racism is demonstrably false. It has always been quite common for members of one tribe to be wary of “others”, it’s a very useful trick in our psychology to not initially trust a stranger, but racism is a whole new level of human intellectual endeavor, that required larger populations divided by many cultural practices and inter group trade of ideas and customs. Religion definitely played a strong role in convincing followers that their practices were “right” and those of other “races” were evil, profane or something leading to a life in hell. Organized religion has been mostly a bane on our world through its curation of feelings of righteous superiority in it’s followers.









Matt Franko said...

“ For you to sit here and harp for years on our material systems and how only science trained people, who have the proper ability to discern, should have a say in these things and then suddenly claim that material oriented stuff isn’t important..... is quite odd”

It’s not odd they are two separate things.., material stuff is easy if you are trained properly... just takes time and munnie... if there are a bunch of unqualified people running our material systems and these morons all think “we’re out of money!” those people are causing an unforced error...

Get these unqualified incompetent morons the hell out of there...

We already have more towards ideal outcomes mandated in law ... you have “promote the general welfare” , Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act, FRA “maximum employment with stable prices”, maybe some others....

Just get the right (qualified) people to run it...

The problem is not a lack of your “empathy!”... you could have the best intentions in the world and if you are not qualified you can f_ck it all up...

Matt Franko said...

“ If you think that the understanding of biological function which has been gleaned over the last 2 centuries isn’t profound”

That’s not what Darwin is... Darwin was 1860...

Darwin PRECEDED Chemistry he PRECEEDED the Periodic Table... Darwin preceded the Discipline of Biochemistry...

When you have Biochemistry today why in the hell would you even read one word of Darwin?

Half of the NIH Covid papers I’m reading have Darwin right in the first paragraph... these people are not doing anything useful for people they are trying to defend Darwin... it’s a big waste of time and munnie....

Matt Franko said...

“ Definition of profound : 1b : difficult to fathom or understand”

ITS .... NOT.... DIFFICULT,,,

Matt Franko said...

IT... TAKES.. 15... MINUTES... TO.... UNDERSTAND..... IF... YOU... ARE... TRAINED ..,, PROPERLY....

Matt Franko said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Pan said...

I have deep appreciation of many things

Spirituality by another name.
You want to believe that knowledge of genetics is profound. I have no such desire.
I'm not interested in that topic, nor am I a eugenicist or transhumanist.
I'm not in the waxing eloquent over biology business.
My view is antinatalist. The outcome of mindless evolution is a form of existence comprised mainly of suffering. Don't expect me to join in popular culture's celebration of life.

I have no practical use for genetics, and it doesn't inspire me.
To me, it falls under the category of trivia.
For you, it is profound, and that is dependent on your feels.
It's all subjective.

Why do you have this misconception that spirituality is limited to mystery or the unknown?
Only criteria is that it holds meaning for you.

What does complexity have to do with it?
A monolithic kernal is complex, yet very few computer nerds would consider it profound.
They'd probably describe it as a kludge. Evolution is a kludge.

Greg said...

I have no misconceptions about spirituality being limited to what we don’t understand, I have a problem with bifurcation into a non spiritual vs spiritual dichotomy. I think everything is spiritual, even by your definition that if it holds meaning for you it’s spiritual. Most everything holds meaning for someone. You might think they are silly for finding meaning in it but...........

I can even be comfortable with the idea that nothing is spiritual, depending on the working definition of spiritual. It’s like when somebody asks me if I believe in God, Tell me what you mean by god and I’ll tell you if I believe in it

Too many people want to assume that many of the hard problems we don’t quite have answers for yet can’t be understood via human methods of science and that “it’s god at work” or some other nonsense. I don’t buy it. I don’t worship anyone or anything. I find many things useful, interesting, enlightening.... but I stop at worshiping anything. Idolatry not for me. But I do love plenty of people and have great appreciation for much of human existence. I also hold much of what we’ve done in our time here in contempt. I work to change that

As an antinatalist there can be nothing you appreciate. You actually wish you weren’t here. Antinatalists believe we should never procreate unless we can guarantee no suffering......... HA! Good luck. You just want to sit back and cast aspersions and tell people they are following meaningless bullshit. You pretty much need to resent your parents for not asking you if you want to be here

Sorry for ya bud

Matt Franko said...

“Too many people want to assume that many of the hard problems we don’t quite have answers for yet can’ be understood via human methods of science and that “it’s god at work” or some other nonsense. I don’t buy it.”

I think your instincts are correct there too..

Remember that 99.99% of the people as “pastors” are Art Degree/Philosophy people...

Matt Franko said...

The pastor at my church for like the last 20 years had a BS in Biochemistry before he went to Divinity School and got his MA in Divinity ... he was interesting to watch operate...

Matt Franko said...

There is a scripture describing Jesus in one of the accounts iirc someone says “is this not the artisan’s son?”

Artisans (tekton) were sure as hell not trained in philosophy...

Matt Franko said...

What is an “ antinatalist”?

You guys got me going to Wikipedia again here...

Matt Franko said...

“Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position and social movement that assigns a negative value to birth. “

OMG ... wtf are you guys into.... cmon Pete...

Greg said...

Dont use the Wikipedia definition as a reflection of all PPs beliefs, I doubt he’s textbook or extreme. Much of my comment to him was a reductioabsurdo argument But I do think it’s a negative view on humanity, essentially believing that we are basically bad and that suffering is a baseline condition. I would like a little more clarification on his position and why he calls himself antinatalist. I had to look up definition again, but I had heard of that philosophy. Antinatal ....... against birth always struck me as strange. A self limiting philosophy if followed rigidly. There would be no second generation followers that’s for sure. One of those ideas that only lasts if there are some hypocrites.

Peter Pan said...

Antinatalism views sentient life as being comprised mostly of suffering. If you don't share that perception, then everything that follows from it is inapplicable.

I never wanted children for personal reasons. Decades later I listened to antinatalist arguments and was largely in agreement with them. I believe having children is unethical.

I don't subscribe to the view that humans are bad for having children. In a majority of cases, people are just following their biological instinct to procreate.

Greg said...

To sum up your claims

1) Having children is unethical and that’s part of why you refrain
2) Humans aren’t “bad” for having children, they are just following their biology
It follows the that
3) being unethical isn’t bad
4) ethics is a worthless concept to judge human actions

Peter Pan said...

Humans behaving as animals are not to be judged.
Since few people make the claim that having children is ethical or unethical, they are not part of a debate. The purpose of anti-natalism is to force a debate.

Greg said...

What debate are you trying to force? That life is about suffering or not?


Humans ARE animals btw. Yes we have capabilities beyond other animals thanks to language and other memes but we are animals. We are 97.5 % Chimpanzee

That other 2.5% is significant..........it’s everything that separates us......which is vast at this point.

Being an animal is not a negative...... beats being a plant 🤪

Peter Pan said...

The debate is about the sanctity of life.
The attempt to qualify suffering, is to persuade people that they should not have children.

This has to be forced. In most cultures, the topic is avoided. When there is discussion, life is presented as sacred, as part of a creator's plan, or merely one step from an afterlife.

We are animals, but as far as we know, no other species has any consideration for antinatalism, or theology. What separates us are these debates. Granted, there are relatively few humans who care to engage in them. Most humans prefer to breed, with nary a concern other than money.

As far as we know, plants do not suffer as we do. A CNS makes a difference, as does sapience.

To clarify, I knew at the age of 14 that I had no interest in having a family.
I did not read about antinatalism until I was 48.