Okay, I have no answer to this, it's just a question I've heard asked in different ways.
How much of our bad, ie. socially unacceptable, behavior, by current sociological standards, do you
imagine is genetic, to some degree, and how much is learned?
So, situations of, say, xenophobia, sexual harassment, bullying, and other behaviors
that we all agree are wrong, how much of it do you suppose is built in to SOME degree when we
were born, if any, and how much is mostly learned behavior that we pick up from an unjust
society?
The question is not, "Can we overcome something genetic." Even if one takes the position that
these behaviors DO have some root in survival or procreation mechanisms, I think it's pretty clear
that most people have at least the CAPACITY, if not the will, to overcome their harmful
or even violent behaviors. Throughout history, people have used the genetic excuse
for all manner of evil.
OR, are we born more innocent of such things, and learn them as time goes on? Certainly, we see
a lot of racism, homophobia and sexism imposed on children from a very young age.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
I think you have it backwards. People are born selfish, greedy, violent little terrors. They are taught that other people have rights. A group of 5-year olds will ostracize anyone who looks or acts different, they don't need to be taught to be bigots. Instead, they need to be taught to be accepting.
Now, teaching them bigotry doesn't help matters, but IMO, people are born terrible, and society is stuck fixing that.
Current Favorite DC Book: Calendar of Small Events
Current Favorite Marvel Book: Hawkeye
Location: Texas
They've sort of broken this down scientifically, if you look at various studies and such. One notes that about half the population is wired to be more cautious and wary, whilst the other half is more prone to taking risks, trusting others, etc. If you look at anthropology, and study apes and social animals in general, there's a tendency for us to group in tribes and protect that; to show aggression (somewhat ritualised) toward each other, etc. Apes commit murder, infanticide, rape. So there does seem, in some people, some intrinsic urges to do these things.
That is counterbalanced by the need for social animals to limit this kind of behavior. And so we have things like altruism, curiosity, compassion, kindness, morality, and on and on. This, in humans, apes, and some other animals, seems to also be inborn. Babies only a few months old try to help others that they think are in distress.
Not only that, but as human beings, we are intelligent and capable of rational thought. MOST of us can empathise with others, and so choose not to do things which fuck over their fellow man-- but many choose to anyway.
Part of that is nurture, too. You can raise people to be intolerant, dishonest, irresponsible; good role models or life-changing experiences can sometimes change that. And you can encourage goodness, too.
Unless one is so mentally ill that one simply can't empathise or learn to live in a civilised manner (brain damage, illness, whatever), then yes, one can learn to co-exist in harmony with others. The issue is that, to some people, it's not worth it.
So, of course part of it is nature. And of course part of it is nurture. And of course, beyond that, we ourselves have free will and the ability to grapple with our biology and our upbringing to become better people.
Perhaps it might be helpful to think of it this way. Perhaps it is like language. We are born wired to learn language. We are not born with it, nor even are be born wired to learn it at any age. But we are born able to learn it easily. Similarly I suspect that we are born wired in a way that makes us susceptible to learning these bad habits, particularly a fear of "other". It's something we learn because it is something we've found useful to learn. So I guess I'd say that most of it is learnt (I'm sure you could raise a child to feel extreme hatred of vegetarians or people who grow long hair) but that the predisposition towards learning it is mostly genetic.
Gentics play a big part.
I see it in my husband and his brother. Both boys raised in a good, stable household - no divorce, no arguing that I've ever seen or heard - a strong middle class family that has had positive interactions with their large, extended family. Their family - from aunts and uncles to cousins - are all well-educated, are all productive members of society, are all law-abiding citizens. The two boys had everything any kid could want - vacations to Disney World and the islands, family bbqs, and most importantly a lot of quality time with their father, who taught them to swim and surf and dive. My husband has always been the loyal, obedient, responsible type, while his brother - 18 months his senior - has been the rebellious, unreliable son. Night and day. They have two cousins - brothers also - who are similar. Same sort of stable family background, but the elder boy is responsible never gave anyone a moment's worry, while the younger has been in and out of rehab and has caused much heartache.
That said, I also think environment - especially peer pressure - can really shape a child. I think of the kids who live in the big cities and are intimidated or threatened to join gangs. They grow up believing that they have to be tough in order to survive, and even those coming from decent homes fall prey to their predatory peers. In cases like this I think environment is stronger than genetics just because kids can't really escape it - it's all around them, on the streets, and in their schools.
I really didn't answer the question...just made a couple observations before my head hit the keyboard. Zzzzz.....
das
I read somewhere recently that humans are genetically disposed to live in communities of about 200 people. Thus, the argument is that distrust of strangers is a product of this natural communal size and the genetic root of xenophobia, ethnocentrism, racism - all of the various exclusionary behaviours that humans commonly exhibit. Obviously, as you say, these behaviours and attitudes can be taught away. At the same time, the more positive human need to exist and thrive in communities also acts to reinforce this same idea of "us vs. them".
My way of interpreting this is to say that this characteristic gives us a fairly broad disposition towards insider vs. outsider behaviour. Society then shapes that behaviour (or acts against it) in different ways. Children - both small children and teenagers - are horrible conformists, trying their best to fit into groups. With really young children, you quickly see the tendency towards singling out the person who is different from the pack. However, children are also very malleable and can be taught to abandon those attitudes fairly quickly.
Homophobia is trickier. This can easily fit in as a manifestation of the "attack the stranger" or "ostracize the outsider" explanation. However, actual homophobia - i.e., ostracizing someone because he/she is gay - probably has more to do with specific social constructs more than anything else. Given that homosexuality is a naturally recurring phenomenon that cuts across all societies and most animal species, it seems unlikely, to me, that there would be an evolutionary disposition towards feeling fear/revulsion towards gay people. But I could be wrong.
It think it's mostly genetics. There are three type of people in this world.
People who will always do the right thing
People who will always do the wrong/selfish thing
People who will do what they feel they can get away with
I think most of us born into the last category and are taught to be the first.
I teach elementary school and I've seen some horrible children come from concerned, attentive parents and I've seen wonderful children come from horrible and rude parents.
I've never believed in the 'Nature vs. Nurture' dichotomy. I think both play parts, to greater or lesser degree. I was a VERY good kid--everybody says so. I made friends with other good kids, many of whom I'm still friends with. I was...less than well-behaved after my parent's divorce--which really fucked me up, but have ALWAYS had a Hero Complex. Both of my parent's brains are fucked up because of shit after being born, as is mine--but I've worked on things over the years. People are born with predispositions from genetics, but it's frankly stupid to think that the book is written from that point. As an example, my oldest nephew showed all of the signs of being a sociopath early on, but turned out fine. I've known bastards from happy families, and saints from shitty ones--and vice versa.
I tend to think that people are generally born morally neutral with the potential to go either way, but with some predispositions towards certain behavior (distrust of outsiders, only having the capacity to care about 150 or so people at a time) but that nature and nurture both play a part.
This is pretty much a learned social construct, there have been many societies with no problem with it. It's mostly abrahamic religions that had a prohibition against it, and wherever those took over or influenced.Originally Posted by ShaunN
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks