Comments on: Apathetic atheists, the naturalistic fallacy, and our budding theocracy http://students.washington.edu/secular/2008/10/18/apathetic-atheists-the-naturalistic-fallacy-and-our-budding-theocracy/ University of Washington's home for students of all flavors. Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:32:09 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Arthur http://students.washington.edu/secular/2008/10/18/apathetic-atheists-the-naturalistic-fallacy-and-our-budding-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Arthur Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:15:11 +0000 http://students.washington.edu/secular/?p=141#comment-210 Thanks for the feedback. As a nonspecialist, I am forced to rely on authorities, and I have to remind myself that Pinker's views are controversial, and also that he's a polymath who writes about subjects he doesn't understand as thoroughly as those who are actually experts in the subject. Thanks for the feedback. As a nonspecialist, I am forced to rely on authorities, and I have to remind myself that Pinker’s views are controversial, and also that he’s a polymath who writes about subjects he doesn’t understand as thoroughly as those who are actually experts in the subject.

]]> By: Karin http://students.washington.edu/secular/2008/10/18/apathetic-atheists-the-naturalistic-fallacy-and-our-budding-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Karin Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:03:33 +0000 http://students.washington.edu/secular/?p=141#comment-209 The psych major in me feels a need to comment. It hardly takes severe abuse to leave a lasting effect. Relatively "minor" abuse or neglect can often have quite an effect as well. Indoctrination is somewhat a strong word. Everyone's parents "indoctrinate" them with morals, values, cultural norms, worldviews, views on gender roles, marriage (this one is a lot nurture), food, parenting (especially this. Of all traits, how someone parents is so hugely defined by their parents own style.), etc. I believe Pinker actually did mention this somewhat. Ah, here: "concrete behavioral traits that patently depend on content provided by the home or culture —which language one speaks, which religion one practices, which political party one supports— are not heritable at all. But traits that reflect the underlying talents and temperaments —how proficient with language a person is, how religious, how liberal or conservative— are partially heritable." In terms of personality, genes play a large part. However, also quite significant is the parent-child match. It's a relationship, you can't think of the parent as a distant figure affecting the child's life from on high; different children of the same parents elicit very different rhythms, different parenting styles. Pinker's not a developmental psychologist. Personally, I'm one of those people following the nature-nurture debate who believes that the intellectual children of the "Nurture Assumption" have been a little too obsessed with the nature half of things. It's really been so much of pendulum. There was the American eugenics movement, and then when American eugenicists saw their theories actually being put into action (on a larger scale than in the US, the forced sterilization and segregation programs of the "genetically unfit" in the US were quite horrific), they really backed off, and academia reacted by swinging much more into pc tabula rasa thinking. Then The Nurture Assumption was published, and they completely swung back. The psych major in me feels a need to comment.
It hardly takes severe abuse to leave a lasting effect. Relatively “minor” abuse or neglect can often have quite an effect as well.
Indoctrination is somewhat a strong word. Everyone’s parents “indoctrinate” them with morals, values, cultural norms, worldviews, views on gender roles, marriage (this one is a lot nurture), food, parenting (especially this. Of all traits, how someone parents is so hugely defined by their parents own style.), etc.
I believe Pinker actually did mention this somewhat. Ah, here:
“concrete behavioral traits that patently depend on content provided by the home or culture —which language one speaks, which religion one practices, which political party one supports— are not heritable at all. But traits that reflect the underlying talents and temperaments —how proficient with language a person is, how religious, how liberal or conservative— are partially heritable.”

In terms of personality, genes play a large part. However, also quite significant is the parent-child match. It’s a relationship, you can’t think of the parent as a distant figure affecting the child’s life from on high; different children of the same parents elicit very different rhythms, different parenting styles.

Pinker’s not a developmental psychologist.

Personally, I’m one of those people following the nature-nurture debate who believes that the intellectual children of the “Nurture Assumption” have been a little too obsessed with the nature half of things. It’s really been so much of pendulum. There was the American eugenics movement, and then when American eugenicists saw their theories actually being put into action (on a larger scale than in the US, the forced sterilization and segregation programs of the “genetically unfit” in the US were quite horrific), they really backed off, and academia reacted by swinging much more into pc tabula rasa thinking. Then The Nurture Assumption was published, and they completely swung back.

]]> By: Arthur http://students.washington.edu/secular/2008/10/18/apathetic-atheists-the-naturalistic-fallacy-and-our-budding-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Arthur Sun, 19 Oct 2008 08:07:42 +0000 http://students.washington.edu/secular/?p=141#comment-208 "On the other hand, Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, a group that supports gay marriage, says numerous studies show there is no difference in the way children develop mentally and physically in same-sex households. “It’s the quality of parenting, not the gender of the parents,” she said." Why do I always find myself arguing with my allies? Oh, well. Steven Pinker argues in "The Blank Slate" that quality of parenting actually doesn't make that much of a difference in how the kids turn out, let alone the sexual orientation or gender of the parents. He argues that the peer group, heredity, and chance are the most important factors in the development of the child, and only severe abuse from the parents would leave a significant and lasting effect. Now, this is certainly not an excuse for parents to start ignoring their kids. It just means that maybe all that fuss over how-to parenting books may not make much of a difference. The one exception I would make that Pinker doesn't seem to talk about much is that childhood indoctrination in a particular religious or political ideology can be accomplished by parents and does strongly affect what the child will believe as an adult. “On the other hand, Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, a group that supports gay marriage, says numerous studies show there is no difference in the way children develop mentally and physically in same-sex households. “It’s the quality of parenting, not the gender of the parents,” she said.”

Why do I always find myself arguing with my allies? Oh, well. Steven Pinker argues in “The Blank Slate” that quality of parenting actually doesn’t make that much of a difference in how the kids turn out, let alone the sexual orientation or gender of the parents. He argues that the peer group, heredity, and chance are the most important factors in the development of the child, and only severe abuse from the parents would leave a significant and lasting effect. Now, this is certainly not an excuse for parents to start ignoring their kids. It just means that maybe all that fuss over how-to parenting books may not make much of a difference.

The one exception I would make that Pinker doesn’t seem to talk about much is that childhood indoctrination in a particular religious or political ideology can be accomplished by parents and does strongly affect what the child will believe as an adult.

]]>