Nature, nurture or nutter

[balaclava]

Why is that, although we all live in the same culture and are exposed to the same information do we have people with views at each end of the spectrum?

For a long time I have been fascinated by the fact that it seems so easy to get people to believe almost anything to the point that they will be prepared to fight for that belief. I am not immune from this, I have string views on certain things and I can find nothing in my background that gives any clues as to why I believe in this or that.

I am new to this forum and I am still finding my way around but it seems to me that there are one or two members who could, by any measure, be described as extremist. Most of us dither in the middle and I wonder whether some of us are hard wired towards extreme views, they want a cause, they want a struggle, they want a fight, they want to be a part of a group sharing the same pain.

What do the philosophers say?

PS Tried to post this in the philosophy section but appears I am not allowed!

[mikelepore]

Why should this be a question for philosophers? I think neurologists are going to have to answer it someday. Some people with nearly the same genetic heritage and experiences, for example, my siblings and myself, develop different personalities. Therefore the connections in the brain must depend on some parameters other than genetics and experiences.

[#FF0000]

At this point anybody with any sort of authority on these matters pretty much agrees that it is mostly if not completely "Nurture".

[Bud Struggle]

At this point anybody with any sort of authority on these matters pretty much agrees that it is mostly if not completely "Nurture".

Have a couple of kids--and then get back to me on that one. :)

[noble brown]

its enviromental and biological. there is an infintie numer of combinations between the two.

a good read is a book by matt ridley "nature via nuture"

[#FF0000]

Have a couple of kids--and then get back to me on that one. :)

Nurture isn't just the parents!

[Hiero]

I am new to this forum and I am still finding my way around but it seems to me that there are one or two members who could, by any measure, be described as extremist. Most of us dither in the middle and I wonder whether some of us are hard wired towards extreme views, they want a cause, they want a struggle, they want a fight, they want to be a part of a group sharing the same pain.


I don't know what you mean by hard wired but I assume you mean something biological or neurological. If you are poiting towards natural disspositions towards radicl politics how would your theory answer multiple examples where radical leftists have abandoning the movement in some cases come right wing, centrist, moderates or complety apathetic towards politics.

[¿Que?]

they want a cause, they want a struggle, they want a fight, they want to be a part of a group sharing the same pain.

Why is the above considered extreme?

Like,
Why contribute for a good cause, why join the struggle, why fight for what's right, why solidarity? hm...

[graffic]

My politics teacher said its a bit of nature but mostly nurture.

Why is that, although we all live in the same culture and are exposed to the same information do we have people with views at each end of the spectrum?

Thats a big, general question. So many average joe's "political" opinions are subconsciously and consciously egocentric because they live on a diet of reactionary propaganda. You listen to radio phone ins, question time on TV and you see stereotypical attitudes from the same types of people. I respect revolutionaries a lot who come from moneyed, privileged backgrounds. That shows boldness.

Peoples views are influenced by what they read and listen to. If, for example, you were surrounded by fundamentalist Christians, only read Christian literature, all friends were fundamentalist etc, I bet even the most ardent athiest, if emmeresed in that atmosphere for a long time, would start to believe it.

Antonio Gramsci described the "cultural hegemony". The ideas of the "ruling class" are seen as the "norm".

[Ele'ill]

Well it started in elementary school and perhaps before that- in fact yes it did start before that. I attended nature camps all summer long- went on treks through the forests and such. Then in elementary school a group came in with their giant sea turtle and whale puppets- they were talking (albeit in a language and manner that little kids could understand) neoliberalism and the destruction of the natural world.

I became involved from that point on- with the help of a mother who suffered from mental illness (there's no blood relations so keep the banable trolling away)

I read both sides of the discussion From the corporate or 'capitalist' point of view and then from the liberal progressive point of view. Neither made sense to me and I as adrift for a long time (like several years).

I started to gradually become more radicalized and I am happy to say that I did it without much influence from the radical community- then I started seeing imagery that for some reason (and it was absolutely immediate upon seeing it) drew me in and made me want to learn more.

One of those events although a later one was November 30th 1999 in Seattle.

[balaclava]

Peoples views are influenced by what they read and listen to. If, for example, you were surrounded by fundamentalist Christians, only read Christian literature, all friends were fundamentalist etc, I bet even the most ardent athiest, if emmeresed in that atmosphere for a long time, would start to believe it.


Absolutely, as I keep saying there are 24m people in north Korea who think their leader is a God and would fight and die for him, notwithstanding that the are starving because of his leadership. I am amazed at how easy it is to convince people that black is white. And speaking of fascism that’s something that Hitler did by convincing the German people that they were genetically and culturally superior to others. That’s why I believe that it is unhealthy for any individual or group to isolate themselves and surround themselves with only the voices of one particular argument or view point. Hmmm . . . isn’t that what you are doing on this forum?

[Ele'ill]

This logic can be abolished with one look at one of our thread where the infighting hijacked and completely destroyed it

We are very interested in the open exchange of ideas- and the disagreement within leftist organizing.

Generally if you say 'some group is genetically superior' - there are facts that destroy this.

"Homeless people are lazy and that's why poverty exists" - no, there are facts that explain how this is incorrect.

"Neoliberalism is a good thing for working class people" - there are facts that refute this entirely.

We are fact gatherers and statistic lookers-

And if there was an ideology that was incorrect but allowed for massive social change in the form of community control, wealth equality, worker control- how could it be wrong if it works? How can it be a danger if it's applied and works before the sweeping social change?

[Revolution starts with U]

Extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice, yet moderation in it certainly is ~paraphrased, but I dont know from who

(note; by liberty I'm referring to a more classical, Bakunin, libertaire concept of liberty, not the right wing libertarian slave system)

[Revolution starts with U]

Absolutely, as I keep saying there are 24m people in north Korea who think their leader is a God and would fight and die for him, notwithstanding that the are starving because of his leadership. I am amazed at how easy it is to convince people that black is white. And speaking of fascism that’s something that Hitler did by convincing the German people that they were genetically and culturally superior to others. That’s why I believe that it is unhealthy for any individual or group to isolate themselves and surround themselves with only the voices of one particular argument or view point. Hmmm . . . isn’t that what you are doing on this forum?

Billy Goat Gruff says "stop trollin!" :thumbdown:

If we were only surrounding ourselves w people that agree why would;
1. you be still posting, along w Bud, Lt, Skooma, and our many other fine OI posters
2. OI be one of the most popular sub forums

???:confused::confused::confused:

[Rocky Rococo]

Extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice, yet moderation in it certainly is ~paraphrased, but I dont know from who

(note; by liberty I'm referring to a more classical, Bakunin, libertaire concept of liberty, not the right wing libertarian slave system)

Barry Goldwater.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well... everybody's got to get at least one thing right :laugh:

[balaclava]

Billy Goat Gruff says "stop trollin!" :thumbdown:

If we were only surrounding ourselves w people that agree why would;
1. you be still posting, along w Bud, Lt, Skooma, and our many other fine OI posters
2. OI be one of the most popular sub forums



Trollin – hmmm I presume that is short for trolling - To fish by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat? And what’s all the billy goat stuff?

You guys have hijacked so many words, fascist, racist, spammer now trolling. If trollin is me making a statement that will encourage debate from which I will get some answers I am guilty. Is that my crime? And talking about crimes why am I ‘restricted’ according the FAQ section is says that restriction comes when a member complains that I have transgressed the forum rules – what did I do? I am starting the form the view that anyone who questions the revleft widened definition of fascism etc is labelled a fascist, sounds a bit Stalinist to me but then he was a revleft wasn’t he!

[Revolution starts with U]

Trollin – hmmm I presume that is short for trolling - To fish by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat? And what’s all the billy goat stuff?

Thats basically the gist, only in conversational terms; comment on forums w a "baited" comment specifically designed to attract vitriol. It is a form of intelledtual dishonesty. It's also very mean spirited, like a troll from folklore; like the guy in the Billy Goats Gruff stories.


You guys have hijacked so many words, fascist, racist, spammer now trolling
Trolling is not an invention of socialists. It is an internet meme. ANd as you said you frequent many forums, I find it very hard to believe you have never heard of it. Which would mean you are lying, like a troll. Don't make me call in Bilbo and Gandalf :tt2:


. If trollin is me making a statement that will encourage debate from which I will get some answers I am guilty. Is that my crime?
Trolling is making intentionally misleading quotes designed to encourage a mob reaction. It never addresses any issues, sidesteps them, and focuses on minor insignificant details, much like this post I am responding to.


And talking about crimes why am I ‘restricted’ according the FAQ section is says that restriction comes when a member complains that I have transgressed the forum rules – what did I do?
I believe you tried to lump all Muslims as fascists or something like that. It seemed to be an ignorant and reactionary statement, indicating that your views are not very closely alligned with the liberation of the people. Hence, you are sent to OI, where we can all discuss your ignorance, and not fill up our learning/discussion boards with your questioning/ridicule of every statement.
I'm not particularly fond of the OI rules, but I understand and respect them.



I am starting the form the view that anyone who questions the revleft widened definition of fascism etc is labelled a fascist, sounds a bit Stalinist to me but then he was a revleft wasn’t he!

I wasn't aware you were explicitly labelled as a fascist. Some have said it seems you probably are, but if you were labelled a fascists, you would be banned already.
Oh yeah... "oh no, don't compare us to Stalin. Him big scary man."
lame comeback :thumbdown:

[Jimmie Higgins]

That’s why I believe that it is unhealthy for any individual or group to isolate themselves and surround themselves with only the voices of one particular argument or view point. Hmmm . . . isn’t that what you are doing on this forum? I'm sorry that is an incredibly absurd claim - so I go to work surrounded by people who support Democrats and Republicans all day, turn on the TV where everyone also supports ideas promoted by the Democrats or Republicans, I read the newspaper also informed by this narrow political spectrum... and yet I am not exposed to other arguments because I spend a few hours a week talking to other radicals (of various viewpoints) on this website?

The exact point of this forum is for people to get together and discuss a wide-range of left-wing politics. While I live in an urban area where there is a lot of real-world activism to be involved in, many of the people who post here are in secluded areas where they may not even know other left-wingers in real life.



Absolutely, as I keep saying there are 24m people in north Korea who think their leader is a God and would fight and die for him, notwithstanding that the are starving because of his leadership. I am amazed at how easy it is to convince people that black is white. And speaking of fascism that’s something that Hitler did by convincing the German people that they were genetically and culturally superior to others. First of all, I doubt that people are monolithically enthusiastic about their rulers in North Korea despite what government propaganda might claim... just as not everyone is enamored with the system in the US either despite what gets reflected from the mainstream media and punditry.

Second, I don't think it is easy for rulers to convince their populations of things - that's why they spend so much effort trying to sell certain ideas to the population. They do it in part through hegemony - spreading certain ideas through education or religion and the media and so on, but they also do it through repression. So a noble lord in Feudalism had regulations to enforce the caste system on the one hand (flogging, execution, for lower-caste people who disobey) but they reinforce that with a religion that tells common people that their station in life is determined by God and to fight that social position would be to upset the harmony that God has set up. A lot of the time this formula works - but there were still peasant uprisings and slave rebellions. In capitalism, people still fight their bosses even though our society tells us we are "free to find other employment" and that wage-labor is a fair deal; and people fought back against the USSR despite the propaganda and repression from those leaders.

But, returning to the original question: both the tendency to uphold ideas passed to us by the dominant culture as well as rebellions against those ideas due to people's experiences causing them to challenge the handed-down ideas are the result of nurture. In Marxist terms, it's known as "mixed consciousness" - people might have contradictory ideas at the same time: like they have been taught that capitalism is the best of all possible systems, yet their first-hand experience at a job might be that they feel taken advantage of, so they organize and fight back despite also having the passed-down ideas that tell them that striking is bad and that the system works equally well for all people.

[Jazzratt]

That’s why I believe that it is unhealthy for any individual or group to isolate themselves and surround themselves with only the voices of one particular argument or view point. Hmmm . . . isn’t that what you are doing on this forum? That's just fucking asinine. It's like saying that if I go to the pub with my mates I'm isolating myself from people who don't like me and surrounding myself with only the voices that do.

[ComradeMan]

That's just fucking asinine. It's like saying that if I go to the pub with my mates I'm isolating myself from people who don't like me and surrounding myself with only the voices that do.

Well I wondered what you were up to at the kebab shop all night!
:D

Balaclava, for someone who professes intelligence and obviously has an educated lexicon and also who professes to analyse with logic, what's with the logical fallacy of "making sweeping generalisations"?

[graffic]

balalclava makes an interesting point. There is an authoritarian tendency on this website

[Bud Struggle]

balalclava makes an interesting point. There is an authoritarian tendency on this website Well, it's a Communist site after all. :D

[#FF0000]

balalclava makes an interesting point. There is an authoritarian tendency on this website

Aaaaaaaaaand how would you solve it

[Bud Struggle]

Aaaaaaaaaand how would you solve it A Soviet! ;)

Right now the place is like the Catholic Church. Blue is for Priests, Purple if for Bishops and Red for Cardinals--of course. Funny the similarities.

[ComradeMan]

A Soviet! ;)

Right now the place is like the Catholic Church. Blue is for Priests, Purple if for Bishops and Red for Cardinals--of course. Funny the similarities.

Bud you are the reddest reactionay I have ever come across! ;)

I think Balaclava would help his cause if he didn't come over as being "against" RevLeft- you have to be around a lot longer for that stuff.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud you are the reddest reactionay I have ever come across! ;) Technically they had a Soviet before they felt the Catholic Chruch was the better template. :)



I think Balaclava would help his cause if he didn't come over as being "against" RevLeft- you have to be around a lot longer for that stuff. Very true. Knives in the back from those who love you--hurt so much more. :D

[Revolution starts with U]

Et tu brute? :ohmy:

[Dean]

balalclava makes an interesting point. There is an authoritarian tendency on this website

And you're a good example of this, given your support for a white-nationalist apartheid regime.

[Mo212]

Most people believe things based on feeling, not on research, statistics and hard numbers. Most people in society are like this btw.

Even those who are educated are incredibly stupid and inept because all human beings have limited computational resources at their disposal to deal with the vastness of the complex world we live in.

[ComradeMan]

Most people believe things based on feeling, not on research, statistics and hard numbers. Most people in society are like this btw.

Even those who are educated are incredibly stupid and inept because all human beings have limited computational resources at their disposal to deal with the vastness of the complex world we live in.

Can you demonstrate this statistically?:lol:

Intelligence is not connected to level of education....:thumbup1:

[Mo212]

Can you demonstrate this statistically?:lol:

Intelligence is not connected to level of education....:thumbup1:

Intelliectual potential is not connected to the level of education.

But to become intelligent requires YEARS of hard work and genetic fortune, not everyone has equal ability to think about their own thinking and see errors in the processes of their own thinking.

The physicality of the mind means that many people are deluded at a hardware level because of limitations (in a way we all are deluded).

We interpret models based on unconscious and conscious processes the intersection between what we've learned and other processes in our mind we don't understand.

Check this out, how our mind tricks us.

ypd5txtGdGw

[ComradeMan]

Intelliectual potential is not connected to the level of education.

But to become intelligent requires YEARS of hard work and genetic fortune, not everyone has equal ability to think about their own thinking and see errors in the processes of their own thinking.

The physicality of the mind means that many people are deluded at a hardware level because of limitations (in a way we all are deluded).

We interpret models based on unconscious and conscious processes the intersection between what we've learned and other processes in our mind we don't understand.

Check this out, how our mind tricks us.


Intelligence is not well understood, as most things connected to the workings of the mind and the brain etc... but what you are saying is non-sense. Intelligence does not require years of hardwork.

What is the physicality of the mind? You might use scientific sounding words but it's actually meaningless drivel you are coming out with.

I am also suspicious of what you mean by "genetic fortune"- are we going to start getting into "Bell Curves" and things..... ? I hope not.

[Ele'ill]

balalclava makes an interesting point. There is an authoritarian tendency on this website


No there isn't- how can you read the entire thread and others like it and only come out with the original statement that was answered explained or refuted five hundred times?

[Hiero]

Intelliectual potential is not connected to the level of education.

But to become intelligent requires YEARS of hard work and genetic fortune, not everyone has equal ability to think about their own thinking and see errors in the processes of their own thinking.

The physicality of the mind means that many people are deluded at a hardware level because of limitations (in a way we all are deluded).

We interpret models based on unconscious and conscious processes the intersection between what we've learned and other processes in our mind we don't understand.

Check this out, how our mind tricks us.

ypd5txtGdGw

When I close my eyes all I hear is far.

[Mo212]

When I close my eyes all I hear is far.

Yes but when they are open you hear the opposite, my point is there are ways our minds work that give rise to mistaken notions.

[trivas7]

At this point anybody with any sort of authority on these matters pretty much agrees that it is mostly if not completely "Nurture".
I disagree. My reading of Steven Pinker and neurologists like Sam Harris persuade me that attitudinal temperment and such are biological in origin.

[Rafiq]

Have a couple of kids--and then get back to me on that one. :)

The parents are not the "nurturing" completely.

What is around them Socially effects them.

Their physical appearance may have a lot to do with it.

[Rafiq]

Maybe everyone can democratically make decisions on rules, and then have admins carry them out on be half of the people's decision.

So let's say person X get's banned for what an admin calls trolling

But this is debatable.

So everyone get's to decide whether person X get's banned, and if they decide so, the admin will ban him.

[Rafiq]

Keep in mind Revleft is not a society. It's a website, and it's not like everyone can go marching with pitch forks up to the violaters house and drag him on the street.

Authoritarianism is good in the case of a website.

But not within society.

And I don't sense the authoritarianism.

People get banned for doing things they shouldn't in the first place.

[ComradeMan]

Keep in mind Revleft is not a society. It's a website, and it's not like everyone can go marching with pitch forks up to the violaters house and drag him on the street.

Authoritarianism is good in the case of a website.

But not within society.

And I don't sense the authoritarianism.

People get banned for doing things they shouldn't in the first place.

Is this website not a virtual society? With it's virtual rules? A virtual social network in a sense.

[RGacky3]

Its not a virtual society, its a virtual discussion forum.

[ComradeMan]

Its not a virtual society, its a virtual discussion forum.

The word virtual came into play.

However we have a coming together of people, an organisational structure, rules, a hierarchy and a myriad of groups and interests.

Although virtual, we do create a kind of society here to in that we have an association of people.

All under the auspices of the Glorious Leader ;) :lol:

[RGacky3]

we do create a kind of society here to in that we have an association of people.


We talk, we don't produce, we don't live, we don't allocate resources, we don't allocate capital, we don't do any of that, we are not a society.

[Rafiq]

Is this website not a virtual society? With it's virtual rules? A virtual social network in a sense.

Right, but people can easily hide their identitys from the safety of a keyboard.

Meaning, if someone in a real life society called a meeting(thread) and said "COMMUNISM IS FAILURE AHEHEHEH"...

We wouldn't ban him, we'd just poke fun at him. But if he did that on Revleft, we'd ban him for trolling because... It's not real alife

[ComradeMan]

Right, but people can easily hide their identitys from the safety of a keyboard.

Meaning, if someone in a real life society called a meeting(thread) and said "COMMUNISM IS FAILURE AHEHEHEH"...

We wouldn't ban him, we'd just poke fun at him. But if he did that on Revleft, we'd ban him for trolling because... It's not real alife

I think the anonymity actually allows them to reveal their true colours very often. Things they would not perhaps say in "real" life.

[Budguy68]

"Homeless people are lazy and that's why poverty exists" - no, there are facts that explain how this is incorrect.



No, of course not. That can't possibily be true at all.... No lazyness or irresponsible behavior exist amongst the poor..

Its actually those Millionaire/Billionaire CEOs and Rich people that are the real Lazy ones and don't do any work right? They probably stole all the wealth from poor and homeless people!

They need to teach this in schools instead...

Whats sad is that a lot of people actually believe the stuff I typed above

[Budguy68]

We need to have someone like Commard Lenin in charge of the Department of Education

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
Vladimir Lenin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle153238.html)

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Vladimir Lenin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle132031.html)

[Ele'ill]

No, of course not. That can't possibily be true at all.... No lazyness or irresponsible behavior exist amongst the poor..

Its actually those Millionaire/Billionaire CEOs and Rich people that are the real Lazy ones and don't do any work right? They probably stole all the wealth from poor and homeless people!

They need to teach this in schools instead...

Whats sad is that a lot of people actually believe the stuff I typed above

I don't understand this post. :confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

Just as much laziness exists amongst the poor as much as the rich. There is no scientific basis to say otherwise.

[Ele'ill]

The word virtual came into play.

However we have a coming together of people, an organisational structure, rules, a hierarchy and a myriad of groups and interests.

Although virtual, we do create a kind of society here to in that we have an association of people.

All under the auspices of the Glorious Leader ;) :lol:


Yes. :bored:

[Budguy68]

I don't understand this post. :confused:

So a homeless who drinks liqour in the streets and just sits on his ass all day is not lazy? What facts are there that explains that there is no lazyness amongst homeless people?

[#FF0000]

So a homeless who drinks liqour in the streets and just sits on his ass all day is not lazy? What facts are there that explains that there is no lazyness amongst homeless people?

Nobody said this.

[Budguy68]

Just as much laziness exists amongst the poor as much as the rich. There is no scientific basis to say otherwise.


So what scientific evidence is there to suggest the poor and the rich are equally lazy?

[Revolution starts with U]

The scientific stance, in the lack of evidence, would be to say that the poor and the rich are both humans. So, as such, they will be basically the same if given the same context.
So now the poor are only the homeless, because that's the only example you could think of? What about the working poor?