Pirouette Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 I certainly am. And the problem is that most people seek tangible "proof" of this abstract sh*t, so they point to anecdotal evidence with the belief that it's determinative. They will talk about how they themselves do not think they require external validation to feed into their confidence, and in doing so, they believe they have debunked the entire theory with a perceived counterexample or two from their experience. If only the study of social interaction was as definitive as math and science... I certainly agree with what you're saying here. I personally find the discussion enjoyable and thought-provoking, and I leave it at that. It isn't for no reason at all that we distinguish between the hard sciences and the social sciences!
Pirouette Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Exactly. When we're young, we have no internal factors...as we grow up and experience new things and interact with new people, the external factors shape those internal factors. That is what I mean by true inner confidence coming entirely from external sources. However, once that seed is planted, whenever in life that may be, internal factors begin to take over. Without external validation, there can be no true inner confidence. So applying this to people who don't start dating until later in life, they have no seed planted. There are no internal factors to draw from...only the external validation with which to plant that seed and begin growing the inner confidence. So you believe we are all born tabula rasa. I disagree and from there on our opinions diverge!
MaxNoob Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 It isn't for no reason at all that we distinguish between the hard sciences and the social sciences! Well evolutionary biology has an explanation for all of this. From the very beginning, feelings or fear or confidence must have been caused by external forces. A wild deer in the forest will be very fearful of people, even if he's never been attacked or taught that people are dangerous. He knows this because of the information contained in his DNA that was passed down from his ancestors, who were hunted by people. This fear is a survival mechanism. A penguin in the Antarctic will be indifferent to your presence because he's never been attacked by a person and his ancestors never were either. But, animals are also born with confidence, enough to overcome their inherited fears, and venture out to find food or a mate. A baby bird born on a cliff knows that he must try to fly, despite the risks and despite not having been taught. Most reptiles are born completely on their own and know what to do, and what to be fearful of. In more recent history, we started to teach our kids, to pass on information and advance at a faster pace, rather than relying solely on our DNA. So, we adapt based on our experiences and from what we are taught (external forces). We also have an internal sense of fear and confidence that we are born with, which were shaped by the external forces that affected our ancestors.
USMCHokie Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 So you believe we are all born tabula rasa. I disagree and from there on our opinions diverge! For the most part, yes. Of course, there are exceptional physiological differences that can alter how a person turns out. But why is there such a emphasis on being a good parent? Why send a kid to a good school? We are all products of our environment, so naturally, parents would want to envelope their kids in the best possible environment that will optimize their development.
Pirouette Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 Well evolutionary biology has an explanation for all of this. From the very beginning, feelings or fear or confidence must have been caused by external forces. A wild deer in the forest will be very fearful of people, even if he's never been attacked or taught that people are dangerous. He knows this because of the information contained in his DNA that was passed down from his ancestors, who were hunted by people. This fear is a survival mechanism. A penguin in the Antarctic will be indifferent to your presence because he's never been attacked by a person and his ancestors never were either. Ha, now we're getting into gene expression and natural selection. But tell me, was the deer that was born with the sense of caution survive over those born without, or did the deer somehow learn the caution, incorporate it intrinsically and pass it on? When we try to apply hard, measureable scientific theories to social sciences and the potential of the human brain, then we are wading into murky territory. I for one am not prepared to go too far into it!
snug.bunny Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 This is just another "subjective" thread. Speaking of natural selection, crocodiles begin hunting a few days after they are born. But, where did that instinct derive from? They are believed to have lived for 200 million years, so who really knows.
USMCHokie Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 This is just another "subjective" thread. Speaking of natural selection, crocodiles begin hunting a few days after they are born. But, where did that instinct derive from? They are believed to have lived for 200 million years, so who really knows. Is anything in social science objective? I think not.
Pirouette Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 For the most part, yes. Of course, there are exceptional physiological differences that can alter how a person turns out. But why is there such a emphasis on being a good parent? Why send a kid to a good school? We are all products of our environment, so naturally, parents would want to envelope their kids in the best possible environment that will optimize their development. Seems to me that the answer you are arriving at is that both, internal and external, are important! If you accept that individuals are different physiologically, including mental, then you can posit that individuals will receive and interpret external cues differently, and these differences can determine the degree to which external stumuli influences the development of the internal self.
USMCHokie Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Seems to me that the answer you are arriving at is that both, internal and external, are important! If you accept that individuals are different physiologically, including mental, then you can posit that individuals will receive and interpret external cues differently, and these differences can determine the degree to which external stumuli influences the development of the internal self. I agree, but I still feel that there can be no internal without the external.
snug.bunny Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Is anything in social science objective? I think not. Yeah? And you can't prove that true inner confidence is based only on external factors alone. If you believe it, fine, but your initial statement may not necessarily apply to others as "truth".
threebyfate Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Umm...deer aren't instinctively afraid of human beings. It's why you can get so close to them in National Parks and not because they're necessarily being hand fed. We're not natural predators to deers. Hokie, it's true that people are shaped by their foundational environments BUT, it's also true that people who want to change, can change. That's why I keep posting that people are where they want to be and where they put themselves. Most people if they want something within reason, bad enough, barring mental illness and even sometimes with mental illness, will go and get it.
Pirouette Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) I agree, but I still feel that there can be no internal without the external. Since there will never be one without the other- you cannot examine pure intellect devoid of all external stimuli- the point is almost moot. I agree it is interesting to consider these concepts though, and there is value in that. Essentially, we are going round and round in a chicken or the egg debate. Edited July 8, 2012 by Pirouette
MaxNoob Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Ha, now we're getting into gene expression and natural selection. But tell me, was the deer that was born with the sense of caution survive over those born without, or did the deer somehow learn the caution, incorporate it intrinsically and pass it on? The deer was born that way, but it's a fear that was refined over millions of generations. It's no different than an animal that was born with a slightly harder shell (which started by sheer chance due to genetic drift), giving it better odds of survival and passing on its genes. This is just another "subjective" thread. Speaking of natural selection, crocodiles begin hunting a few days after they are born. But, where did that instinct derive from? They are believed to have lived for 200 million years, so who really knows. They got this instinct from their ancestors, the amphibians, who learned it from their ancestors, fish. It goes back about 4 billion years to the first single cell that happened to absorb another single cell. Umm...deer aren't instinctively afraid of human beings. It's why you can get so close to them in National Parks and not because they're necessarily being hand fed. We're not natural predators to deers. Those deer have been tamed at a young age. You should see how much effort hunters go through to kill wild deer. They buy camouflaged gear, put up motion sensors in the forest, and try to remain absolutely still up in trees for hours.
Pirouette Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) The deer was born that way, but it's a fear that was refined over millions of generations. It's no different than an animal that was born with a slightly harder shell (which started by sheer chance due to genetic drift), giving it better odds of survival and passing on its genes. Yes, that's what I was getting at, which was why you have to be careful about the word choice when you earlier said something about the original feelings of confidence and fear being caused by outside forces. And like I also said, applying this to the humanities is tricky. Eugenics anyone? Edited July 8, 2012 by Pirouette
Curtis24 Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 The article is partially true. However, confidence can also come from ignorance. That is one of the main problems of our society - Millenial men have been so sheltered, that they have not had to deal with sexual rejection, and are running around with overinflated egos.
threebyfate Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Those deer have been tamed at a young age. You should see how much effort hunters go through to kill wild deer. They buy camouflaged gear, put up motion sensors in the forest, and try to remain absolutely still up in trees for hours.Wrong. They're wild. I live in Canada where real forests and real National Parks exist. You stating some untrue theory on LS, doesn't make it true. Human beings aren't the natural predators for deer. There's no instinctive fear from deer beyond the normal caution of any herbivore. Run at any herbivore screaming, even if it's just a cat, and any herbivore will run. 1
Anela Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 I had two deer run across the back of my garden the other afternoon. One wanted to keep moving, but the other stepped back out of the woods and was looking around, when it heard me saying something quietly. They're fine if you don't make sudden movements.
MaxNoob Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Wrong. They're wild. I live in Canada where real forests and real National Parks exist. You stating some untrue theory on LS, doesn't make it true. Human beings aren't the natural predators for deer. There's no instinctive fear from deer beyond the normal caution of any herbivore. Run at any herbivore screaming, even if it's just a cat, and any herbivore will run. I'm Canadian also. Natives have hunted deer here for thousands of years, and humans have been hunting with carved tools for millions of years. If you go to any forest other than a trail in a National Park, where deers have been fed by people since birth, you'll see how shy they are. If an adult deer spots me 100m away, he might stare at me if I stand perfectly still. But just taking 1 step forward, he'll run away, and kick his hind legs up to advertise that he's strong and not worth pursuing. They can actually fake confidence as they're running.
Recommended Posts