Truly Important..

[godBoy]

What is truly important in your life?
Reading some other posts I think to my self "What's the point? Why do people put so much energy into this?" and come up with...
Pleasure. People get enjoyment out of things I clearly don't, so what is it that you live for?

[hmkpoker]

Easy.

My own enjoyment and happiness.

[guesswest]

I've been thinking about this post ever since you put it up.

The only thing I can think of (and I'm almost too embarassed to post an observation this corny sounding) is 'love'. And I'm not even really sure what that is.

[Doctaprofit]

sex, learning, being entertained, interacting, increasing my influence

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

The only thing I can think of (and I'm almost too embarassed to post an observation this corny sounding) is 'love'. And I'm not even really sure what that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Love is your own happiness and enjoyment.

Any attempt to convince you that you should be motivated by something other than your own self-interest is oppressive control.

[guesswest]

I thought about that myself before posting hmk. But I'm not sure that's true.

I take your point on board, and I use a similar rationale to argue things like altruism don't exist (because you're always essentially acting in self interest).

But I think 'love' is different - in so far as it impacts a part of you that you don't have control over, and you can find yourself doing things you very consciously recognise will not make you happy as a servant to it. You can argue that these are both competing aspects of consciousness that collectively form 'you' - but I'd argue back that they're so fundamentally different that whatever that mechanism is, it doesn't bear any real relationship to motivations like the pursuit of 'happiness' and 'enjoyment', at least not in anything approaching the way those words are normally used.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
and you can find yourself doing things you very consciously recognise will not make you happy as a servant to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Time preference. You prefer not having to deal with your wife and kid's emotional backlash to taking the heat and then going on to be happy.

[guesswest]

I don't agree. I've done a number of things with no possible imagined delayed gratification. My theory is something like this:

When you talk about loving your kids, it makes evolutionary sense. They're an extension of your genetic material, so an extension of yourself and you can do things that are genuinely 'self' sacrificing and it's still logical to do so.

When we bring non-family members into the picture it's different. I think of love as being more like a virus then, whether it's a flaw in our make-up or the most profound part of it I don't know, but I don't think it's something we have much control over.

If I drop acid and jump in front of a train because I believe it's made of marshmallows, am I acting out of self-interest? Maybe in the most meaningless literal sense I am in so far as I choose the action in that moment, but the primary reason is just that my cognition has been been impacted by something outside of my everyday 'self'. I think love is like that, except there's a simultaneous part of 'self' watching the other part on acid and it can't get it to come down.

Edit: That analogy makes more sense if I'm spiked, I just realized.

[Darryl_P]

I was thinking of starting a similar thread for similar reasons then it got stopped by my "what's the point" filter... but since you asked...

My ultimate goal is to achieve immortality by maximizing my own representation in the world...I view children and grandchildren as extensions of myself and my job is to make sure the "nurture" element gets replicated much like the genes do. I wouldn't want the soul of a fine genetic specimen to get into the hands of the enemy. Avoiding that requires a long and hard education, and I'm not talking about the various brainwashing institutions called colleges and universities. Much of that education will have to come from me directly through shared experiences, long discussions, life experiments, etc.

I have a very long planning horizon: 200 to 500 years. Naturally I won't live to see the plans come to fruition but if my children are moving in the right direction and they bring up their children with a similar philosophy, then I will say my life has been a success and I'll be ready for death.

How about you?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. I've done a number of things with no possible imagined delayed gratification. My theory is something like this:

[/ QUOTE ]

We all do. THat's what I was implying by "time preference."

[ QUOTE ]
When you talk about loving your kids, it makes evolutionary sense. They're an extension of your genetic material, so an extension of yourself and you can do things that are genuinely 'self' sacrificing and it's still emotionally rewarding to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. We evolved to protect our children, and thus there are mechanisms that exist to reward us when we protect/help/care for them (love), and mechanisms that punish us when we fail to do so (guilt).

[ QUOTE ]
If I drop acid and jump in front of a train because I believe it's made of marshmallows, am I acting out of self-interest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. You are working toward what you perceive is an optimal state of personal affairs based on (very) limited information.

[guesswest]

It's the last point I'm getting at here. All actions are necessarily and by definition a result of 'self-interest', if they aren't they're not 'chosen', they'd have to completely random.

But I don't think that's what people really mean when they talk about acting in self-interest, and I think such a definition is completely useless.

I believe there is a reasonably consistent conception of 'self' we have over our lifetime, and when it changes it only does so very gradually.

But every now and again something intoxicates it, be it drugs, love, whatever. If we act as a result of these motivations it's true that we are in the literal and useless sense acting out of 'self-interest', in so far as we are choosing an action at that moment in time.

But we can be acting in a way that is nothing close to our 'regular self'. And in the specific case of love, I believe that 'regular self' can be conscious and present the whole time, but overpowered. The common problem I think in saying that we always act out of 'self-interest' is assuming the singularity of 'self'.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the last point I'm getting at here. All actions are necessarily and by definition a result of 'self-interest', if they aren't they're not 'chosen', they'd have to completely random.

But I don't think that's what people really mean when they talk about acting in self-interest, and I think such a definition is completely useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's EXACTLY what people mean by that.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
All actions are necessarily and by definition a result of 'self-interest', if they aren't they're not 'chosen', they'd have to completely random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly how do you figure that? Why should it be impossible for a person to freely and knowingly choose to take an action that benefits another and harms himself?

[guesswest]

I don't think it is what people mean by that, it may be what you mean by that but I don't think that's what most people would take it as meaning.

I think by acting in 'self-interest' most people construe that as an action which will have 'benefit' to the individual, real or imagined, direct or indirect. Again, it's an issue of having a reliable and continuous concept of 'self' which I don't think we have.

[bearly]

please, circle the "all" in your second sentence. then, take the time (4-5 years would get you going) and talk to some experienced and well-trained psycho-therapists, a group of respected neurologists, and physicians who are aware of the psychogenic nature of certain conditions.............b

[CallMeIshmael]

I havent read the thread too carefully, but Im pretty sure everything hmkpoker says on this topic is correct.

Sharkey, once again, delivers the goods.

[guesswest]

If you're implying that I'm not an expert in such things - I'm hardly claiming to be. But I think the particular issue you're highlighting is a semantic one, it's nothing to do with psychology. I meant that inherent to the notion of 'choice' is a 'self' needed to make that choice. I was also suggesting that the concept of self-interest applied literally is useless for that exact reason (it's self-defining).

And, as I've mentioned on previous threads, if you feel there is something missing in a debate you could add it yourself instead of just idly pointing out I/we haven't seen it - it's meant to be an exchange.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All actions are necessarily and by definition a result of 'self-interest', if they aren't they're not 'chosen', they'd have to completely random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly how do you figure that? Why should it be impossible for a person to freely and knowingly choose to take an action that benefits another and harms himself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming the person is rational, that is still a decision made in his own "self-interest". Even though the action benefits another to his own harm, that decision has more utility for him than the alternatives.

The easiest example is in child rearing. Ive made many decisions which were likely to be detrimental to my personal success and happiness (career, preferred places to live, love/sex etc) but which benefited my (adopted) son.

I would also expect any study to show the genetic role in bonding with children to be relatively minor. Its obviously anecdotal but I cant imagine any bond being stronger with a natural child than mine is with my son....and Ive also seen plenty of natural and adoptive parents treat their kids like crap.

[guesswest]

I'd be surprised if that wasn't true. But an evolutionary psychologist would likely say that you have the psychological mechanism for bonding with your son because the person occupying that role would traditionally have your genetic material. In the same way you still have a sex drive after a vasectomy.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I would also expect any study to show the genetic role in bonding with children to be relatively minor. Its obviously anecdotal but I cant imagine any bond being stronger with a natural child than mine is with my son....and Ive also seen plenty of natural and adoptive parents treat their kids like crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, adopted children (in our society) often get better treatment than the average child.

This, however, is likely the cause of biased selection.

1. Adopted parents actively look for a child, whereas biological parents have sex, and a child may be an unwanted side effect

2. Adopted parents have to meet screening standards that regular parents do not

3. People who actively seek to adopt are probably going to be more altruistic than the average person


BUT... if you look at studies where a step-child was brought into a home at a VERY young age (like, less than one, and all of the regular bonding has had time to take place) that step-child is like 10 times more likely to be physically abused and 100 times more likely to be fatally abused than a biological child brought into a roughly comparable living situation (like socioeconomic, area, etc)


Basically, studies show genetic relations are very important in bonding

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would also expect any study to show the genetic role in bonding with children to be relatively minor. Its obviously anecdotal but I cant imagine any bond being stronger with a natural child than mine is with my son....and Ive also seen plenty of natural and adoptive parents treat their kids like crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, adopted children (in our society) often get better treatment than the average child.

This, however, is likely the cause of biased selection.

1. Adopted parents actively look for a child, whereas biological parents have sex, and a child may be an unwanted side effect

2. Adopted parents have to meet screening standards that regular parents do not

3. People who actively seek to adopt are probably going to be more altruistic than the average person


BUT... if you look at studies where a step-child was brought into a home at a VERY young age (like, less than one, and all of the regular bonding has had time to take place) that step-child is like 10 times more likely to be physically abused and 100 times more likely to be fatally abused than a biological child brought into a roughly comparable living situation (like socioeconomic, area, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disagree with your "biased selection" observation..that is not inconsistent with genetics playign a minor role, and probably supports it.

On your last point though, I think you'll find a big difference in statistics between step-children and adopted children, and even between step-children based on the circumstances (eg death of a natural parent vs divorce of the natural parents or abandonment).

Divorce among families with adopted children (neither parent is a natural parent) is clearly lower than divorce among families with only natural children.

[Andrew Karpinski]

The safety of my person and my ability to procreate are the two most important things in my life.

[bearly]

1)you said all actions, not all actions which are chosen. 2) the conclusion stated in your sentence, forclosing other options, is incorrect. 3) i don't post idle thoughts................b

[guesswest]

You're right on (1), poor choice of words on my part. And (2) also, as a result of that poor wording. Though I believe the conclusion would be valid if I'd stated the premise in the way I was attempting to initially, and did in the follow-up.

As far as (3) goes I was just suggesting that if you see a flaw in something I write (and I'm sure there are many), you could tell me what you think the flaw actually is and engage in some discussion/debate, rather than just advising me to go learn more.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont disagree with your "biased selection" observation..that is not inconsistent with genetics playign a minor role, and probably supports it.

On your last point though, I think you'll find a big difference in statistics between step-children and adopted children, and even between step-children based on the circumstances (eg death of a natural parent vs divorce of the natural parents or abandonment).

Divorce among families with adopted children (neither parent is a natural parent) is clearly lower than divorce among families with only natural children.

[/ QUOTE ]


Though I dont think I disagree with anything you just said, I fail to see how

[ QUOTE ]
I would also expect any study to show the genetic role in bonding with children to be relatively minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

can coincide with:

Studies have found that if a child is killed by one of his parents, there is a 98% chance that that parent is a step-parent

[Philo]

"Any attempt to convince you that you should be motivated by something other than your own self-interest is oppressive control." -hmkpoker

"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."
-Albert Einstein

Hmm...I guess one of you must be wrong.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
"Any attempt to convince you that you should be motivated by something other than your own self-interest is oppressive control." -hmkpoker

"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."
-Albert Einstein

Hmm...I guess one of you must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only one who is wrong is you, for making such and assumption. Living for the benefit of oneself and living for the benefit of others are not mutually exclusive.

[yukoncpa]

Hi Godboy,

You ask: what’s the point in life? Many people say; pleasure. And you say people get enjoyment out of things I clearly don’t.
Do you not get enjoyment out of pleasure? What do you think of as pleasure? Maybe I’m reading your post incorrectly.
The point of life is pleasure. The pleasure of the company of good friends. The pleasure to talk with intelligent people such as yourself. The pleasure one finds when waking up in the morning and finding beauty in every little thing.
What’s wrong with pleasure? Do you not like hunting? Fishing? Camping?. What about sports or reading good books? I enjoy flirting with a woman. And even if I were married, I’d be thrilled if another female flirted with me, even though I would take no pleasure in acting on it, as I would take pleasure in being in love with my spouse.
So what is it exactly that you find so distasteful in pleasure?

[godBoy]

i'm with you, there is nothing distasteful about pleasure itself, I was just speaking the obvious in saying... people get pleasure out of different things.

I was curious as to what?

[godBoy]

Gee, I'm not thinking that far ahead. I'm only young and aren't yet thinking about my legacy just yet. I guess the things that I find pleasure in are using my intellect, appreciation of art and relationships with friends.. to name a few.

[godBoy]

nah, I'd say Love is more the 'thing' that makes you want to give happiness and enjoyment to someone other than yourself.

But perhaps, in giving this love to another we simply like the feeling it gives us, so in a sense it's selfish.. but I would much prefer to think of myself as giving selflessly.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont disagree with your "biased selection" observation..that is not inconsistent with genetics playign a minor role, and probably supports it.

On your last point though, I think you'll find a big difference in statistics between step-children and adopted children, and even between step-children based on the circumstances (eg death of a natural parent vs divorce of the natural parents or abandonment).

Divorce among families with adopted children (neither parent is a natural parent) is clearly lower than divorce among families with only natural children.

[/ QUOTE ]


Though I dont think I disagree with anything you just said, I fail to see how

[ QUOTE ]
I would also expect any study to show the genetic role in bonding with children to be relatively minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

can coincide with:

Studies have found that if a child is killed by one of his parents, there is a 98% chance that that parent is a step-parent

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you are again missing the difference between step-parents and adoptive parents.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
nah, I'd say Love is more the 'thing' that makes you want to give happiness and enjoyment to someone other than yourself.

But perhaps, in giving this love to another we simply like the feeling it gives us, so in a sense it's selfish.. but I would much prefer to think of myself as giving selflessly.

[/ QUOTE ]

BAM. There it is. You don't want to think that your actions are self-motivated, so you deny it.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Because you are again missing the difference between step-parents and adoptive parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, no Im not.

I thought we've been over this, ADOPTIVE PARENTS ARE HUGELY BIASED IN STUDIES LIKE THIS

In pretty much any study that tries to correlate two things, you need to look out for biases.




For example, the study I referenced compared risk of child abuse in:

- A newly married couple, with at least one member that is divorced, has a child together

- A newly married couple, with at least one member that is divorced, with a very young child from a previous marriage

Socioeconomic biases were accounted for.




Do you see how this study is much better for looking at genetics' role in child-parent bonding than using anecdotal evidence, or comparing adoptive parents to regular parents?

I mean, dont get me wrong: strong parent-child bonds can form between non genetically related people.

But, when conflict occur, a lack of genetic relation is a HUGE risk factor

[JOEL_]

To survive.

[guesswest]

Ishmael - there's so many things that could come into play there which you're not accounting for. You're talking about dynamic human relationships.

It could be the stress of the kid as a reminder of a relationship the step-parent was jealous over, the interference of the biological parent, the kind of individual's that are attracted to such relationships etc. There's just no way you can conclude anything worthwhile from that stat with so many unknown variables.

[Copernicus]

Ummmm, yes you are still confusing them.

The second group in the study you are referring to is NOT an adoptive couple..... one natural parent and a step parent is NOT an adoptive couple.

The difference is in the motivation of BOTH parents to adopt. In a step-parent situation the child is coming along as part of the relationship with the natural parent, and is often seen as competition for the attention of the natural parent. In others, particularly when the child is an older girl, the child is the object of the relationship, and the mother just a reason to get close to her.

There is no "bias" to negate my point, because there are (at least as far as I know) no significant differences in the profiles of adoptive vs natural couples. They are statistically far more stable than any other family structure despite the lack of genetic links to the children.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "bias" to negate my point, because there are (at least as far as I know) no significant differences in the profiles of adoptive vs natural couples.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT????

You dont think there are going to be differences between couples that not only choose to adopt, but also PASS THE TESTS REQUIRED TO ADOPT CHILDREN and a couple choosen at random from the population????????????

You cant be serious



EDIT: Keep in mind that we are arguing the statement "I would also expect any study to show the genetic role in bonding with children to be relatively minor."

And not: "adoptive parents are, in general, good parents"

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Ishmael - there's so many things that could come into play there which you're not accounting for. You're talking about dynamic human relationships.

It could be the stress of the kid as a reminder of a relationship the step-parent was jealous over, the interference of the biological parent, the kind of individual's that are attracted to such relationships etc. There's just no way you can conclude anything worthwhile from that stat with so many unknown variables.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that there are other possible reasons for these finding.

BUT, keep in mind, its not like Im reporting things Ive found.

These are studies found in scientific journals, that have passed peer review, and many studies with highly differing methods concluded that genetic relationships are important in child-parent bonding.

Its not like they are unaware of alternate explanations, and they try to account for these biases as best they can.

Also, its not like its twice as likely that a step-parent kills their kid as a regular parent... when its 98%-2%, it seems unlikely that ALL of that can be explained though other bias.

[CallMeIshmael]

FWIW, other studies:


- Genetic relationship to child correlates with monetary awards given to the child... Namely, parents spend less money on their "children" that they arent related to, despite playing the role of parent


- Hadza men (hunter-gather type tribe) NEVER play with their step children, though they frequently play with their real children

- In more developmed countries, fathers residing with both step and genetic children interact more with their genetic children

- There are also more agonistic interactions between non gentetic child and parent in these households



I just cant see a logical argument for these (and many other) observations that doesnt concede that genetics are important for child-parent bonding

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
Gee, I'm not thinking that far ahead. I'm only young and aren't yet thinking about my legacy just yet. I guess the things that I find pleasure in are using my intellect, appreciation of art and relationships with friends.. to name a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget air-humping stormtroopers.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ishmael - there's so many things that could come into play there which you're not accounting for. You're talking about dynamic human relationships.

It could be the stress of the kid as a reminder of a relationship the step-parent was jealous over, the interference of the biological parent, the kind of individual's that are attracted to such relationships etc. There's just no way you can conclude anything worthwhile from that stat with so many unknown variables.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that there are other possible reasons for these finding.

BUT, keep in mind, its not like Im reporting things Ive found.

These are studies found in scientific journals, that have passed peer review, and many studies with highly differing methods concluded that genetic relationships are important in child-parent bonding.

Its not like they are unaware of alternate explanations, and they try to account for these biases as best they can.

Also, its not like its twice as likely that a step-parent kills their kid as a regular parent... when its 98%-2%, it seems unlikely that ALL of that can be explained though other bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been a while since I studied this stuff, but a few years ago when I was taking sociology and psych etc. I'm remembering that I was told the consensus view was the exact opposite, that there was no identifiable trend in the direction you're suggesting. I'm sure the stat you mention is significant, but I'd content that step-parents are competing for their spouses attention/affection etc. We don't think of lions who slaughter their mates offspring as 'step-parents', we think of them as turning down the job of parent.

I don't doubt that the study you reference is genuine, but I do doubt that many people in academia are reaching the same conclusions as you based on those stats, bearing in mind all the other variables involves. I don't mean to be pedantic, but can you link or reference any kind of sources who are arguing this viewpoint?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no "bias" to negate my point, because there are (at least as far as I know) no significant differences in the profiles of adoptive vs natural couples.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT????

You dont think there are going to be differences between couples that not only choose to adopt, but also PASS THE TESTS REQUIRED TO ADOPT CHILDREN and a couple choosen at random from the population????????????


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I dont think there are statistically significant differences. There are many routes to adoption which might individually have some bias but not overall as a group.

Eg. there may be a religious bias due to using religious based orphanages for one group, there may be a financial bias amongst those that adopt privately, there is no obvious bias amongst those that adopt overseas and there may be some inverse financial bias amongst those that adopt through state agencies.

Any overall bias in adoption would also have to be contrary to the risk factors for family problems (eg divorce, child abuse etc) for it to impact comparative statistics.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I dont think there are statistically significant differences. There are many routes to adoption which might individually have some bias but not overall as a group.

Eg. there may be a religious bias due to using religious based orphanages for one group, there may be a financial bias amongst those that adopt privately, there is no obvious bias amongst those that adopt overseas and there may be some inverse financial bias amongst those that adopt through state agencies.

Any overall bias in adoption would also have to be contrary to the risk factors for family problems (eg divorce, child abuse etc) for it to impact comparative statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mention several biases within your post.

Religious and financial biases are biases.

But, more importantly, I got this from wikipedia:

"On applying to adopt, the potential adoptive parent(s) will generally be assessed for suitability. This can take the form of a home study, interviews, and financial, medical and criminal record checks. In some jurisdictions, such studies must be carried out by an independent or state authority, while in others, they can be carried out by the adoption agency itself. A pre-adoption course may also be required."


I mean, you certainly know more about the process than I do, but I find it hard to believe that the group of parents that passed the above screening process are in no way different than parents picked at random.


Also, what do you mean by the last line... I dont understand what it is saying



FWIW, this thesis is pretty relevant... its pretty long, but Im probably gonna read it within a couple days, since it looks interesting

http://www.unl.edu/anthro/thesis/gibson.pdf#search='relatedness%20adopted'

[CallMeIshmael]

http://www.geocities.com/call_me_ishmael_2002/daly___wilson_stepchildren_1996.pdf

The last one hasnt be referenced in this thread, but actually is pretty strong in favour of my argument (imo) so I threw it in there:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p201.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p202.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p203.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p204.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p205.jpg

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.geocities.com/call_me_ishmael_2002/daly___wilson_stepchildren_1996.pdf

The last one hasnt be referenced in this thread, but actually is pretty strong in favour of my argument (imo) so I threw it in there:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p201.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p202.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p203.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p204.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/CallMeIshmael2002/2p205.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
If your argument is about step-families then it supports it, but that has nothing to do with my argument which is about adoptive families.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I dont think there are statistically significant differences. There are many routes to adoption which might individually have some bias but not overall as a group.

Eg. there may be a religious bias due to using religious based orphanages for one group, there may be a financial bias amongst those that adopt privately, there is no obvious bias amongst those that adopt overseas and there may be some inverse financial bias amongst those that adopt through state agencies.

Any overall bias in adoption would also have to be contrary to the risk factors for family problems (eg divorce, child abuse etc) for it to impact comparative statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mention several biases within your post.

Religious and financial biases are biases.

But, more importantly, I got this from wikipedia:

"On applying to adopt, the potential adoptive parent(s) will generally be assessed for suitability. This can take the form of a home study, interviews, and financial, medical and criminal record checks. In some jurisdictions, such studies must be carried out by an independent or state authority, while in others, they can be carried out by the adoption agency itself. A pre-adoption course may also be required."


I mean, you certainly know more about the process than I do, but I find it hard to believe that the group of parents that passed the above screening process are in no way different than parents picked at random.


Also, what do you mean by the last line... I dont understand what it is saying



FWIW, this thesis is pretty relevant... its pretty long, but Im probably gonna read it within a couple days, since it looks interesting

http://www.unl.edu/anthro/thesis/gibson.pdf#search='relatedness%20adopted'

[/ QUOTE ]

The screening process varies greatly from state to state and by type of adoption. Eg. it is non-existent for private adoptions, very liberal for state agency adoptions (whose main goal is to move kids into families as long as their is undue apparent risk), and is very strict for Catholic orphanages. Even when the requirements are strict, the quality of home study agencies is all over the board. Many are just rubber stamps unless there are obvious problems. Any other screens are pretty ineffective for anyone motivated enough to adopt.

Re the type of bias, all I was saying is that the bias has to differ from any biases inherent in the comparator group.
Eg, there is some financial basis in the decision to get married, so to the extent there is any bias in favor or more affluent families adopting, it would not necessarily distort comparisons with a group that exhibits that same bias.

The thesis does look interesting and the summary sounds generally supportive in refuting kinship as a dominant factor, though it is based on positive actions rather than negative.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
If your argument is about step-families then it supports it, but that has nothing to do with my argument which is about adoptive families.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind im not arguing about step families or adoptive familes.

Im just saying that the genetic bond between a parent-child affects the relationship in a more than minor way

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Re the type of bias, all I was saying is that the bias has to differ from any biases inherent in the comparator group.
Eg, there is some financial basis in the decision to get married, so to the extent there is any bias in favor or more affluent families adopting, it would not necessarily distort comparisons with a group that exhibits that same bias.

[/ QUOTE ]



OK... you said above that couples that adopt are less likely to divorce than couples with natural children

Which of the following a more likely explanation:


1) The adopted child brings them together, moreso than a regular child

2) The parents that choose to adopt, and then pass the adoption screening process (however rigourous) are a group that is, on average, less likely to divorce, because of a more stable bond

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your argument is about step-families then it supports it, but that has nothing to do with my argument which is about adoptive families.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind im not arguing about step families or adoptive familes.

Im just saying that the genetic bond between a parent-child affects the relationship in a more than minor way

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. The reason why the distinction is important, imo, is because there are many more factors in a step relationship that dominate the decision to form that type of family and that are likely to be negative with regard to the children. Inclusion of step families in any comparison would result in a huge negative bias. That should be pretty obvious from the chart in your above post.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Understood. The reason why the distinction is important, imo, is because there are many more factors in a step relationship that dominate the decision to form that type of family and that are likely to be negative with regard to the children. Inclusion of step families in any comparison would result in a huge negative bias. That should be pretty obvious from the chart in your above post.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you read the pdf file linked to, you will see that these other biases have been tested, are CANNOT explain the observed statistics

[Copernicus]

btw, I think youll find fairly strong basis for refuting kinship as a factor in two other areas of study. First the bonding studies done with humans and other primates that show that bonding with any maternal figure is far more important for an infants happiness than who the maternal figure is.

The other is studies that show that a physcial resemblence to the father is important in bonding those two together. If there is kinship without the physical resemblence (ie the baby looks more like the mother, or neither) paternal attention suffers.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
btw, I think youll find fairly strong basis for refuting kinship as a factor in two other areas of study. First the bonding studies done with humans and other primates that show that bonding with any maternal figure is far more important for an infants happiness than who the maternal figure is.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part, I was discussing the bond from the perspective of the parents. Much of what is discussed is not applicable to the child, since their evolutionary interests are completely different than the parents here.

[ QUOTE ]
The other is studies that show that a physcial resemblence to the father is important in bonding those two together. If there is kinship without the physical resemblence (ie the baby looks more like the mother, or neither) paternal attention suffers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm.... this STRONGLY supports my viewpoint.


The reason this occurs is that maternity is certain, whereas paternity is not. Males have evolved to care less about children that look less like them, because the risk that they are caring for a child that does not contain their genes (ie. the child of a different sex partner of the female) is increased.

I dont understand, how do you think this point helps your argument?


EDIT: somewhat interesting is the observation that mothers say "our baby looks like you" to the father WAY more than the father does to the mother. This is the result of the fact that men need more physical similarities in order to invest in the child

[pilliwinks]

I understand that it is common for thieves to believe that most other people are equally dishonest. Certainly tax cheats of my acquaintance seem to think that everyone does it.

I just mention this because it seems possible that selfish people similarly believe that everyone is as self-absorbed as they are, but are just less honest about admitting it.

I think there is a distinction, however, between getting your pleasure from beating small children and getting your pleasure from helping leprosy victims. Both certainly can give pleasure to those that are into that kind of thing, but you would have to be particularly obtuse or perverse to claim that both are equally selfish in pleasing themselves.

[MidGe]

pilliwinks,

Good post. In classical psychology, this is known as projection. The worst part about it, is that the person is totally unaware that s/he is projecting. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw, I think youll find fairly strong basis for refuting kinship as a factor in two other areas of study. First the bonding studies done with humans and other primates that show that bonding with any maternal figure is far more important for an infants happiness than who the maternal figure is.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part, I was discussing the bond from the perspective of the parents. Much of what is discussed is not applicable to the child, since their evolutionary interests are completely different than the parents here.

[ QUOTE ]
The other is studies that show that a physcial resemblence to the father is important in bonding those two together. If there is kinship without the physical resemblence (ie the baby looks more like the mother, or neither) paternal attention suffers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm.... this STRONGLY supports my viewpoint.


The reason this occurs is that maternity is certain, whereas paternity is not. Males have evolved to care less about children that look less like them, because the risk that they are caring for a child that does not contain their genes (ie. the child of a different sex partner of the female) is increased.

I dont understand, how do you think this point helps your argument?


EDIT: somewhat interesting is the observation that mothers say "our baby looks like you" to the father WAY more than the father does to the mother. This is the result of the fact that men need more physical similarities in order to invest in the child

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be taken both ways. My point was that it is only apparent kinship, not the reality of kinship that leads toward that investment. Also, a single mother would be attractive to the male for mating purposes, which would contribute to the formation of the family unit from an evolutionary perspective without the need for that kind of indentification, i.e. lowering the threshold for kinship for child rearing purposes.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that it is only apparent kinship, not the reality of kinship that leads toward that investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that apparent kinship increases a father's investment in a child is pretty good evidence that relatedness is important in the parent-child bond.

The logic "well, since it is only apparent relatedness, and not actual relatedness that counts, so the genetic relatedness doenst actually matter" is completely invalid, since there is no way for a person to measure the relatedness of themseleves to the person they think is their child. The best way to judge relatedness is physical appearance, which they are clearly using to determine effort


[ QUOTE ]
Also, a single mother would be attractive to the male for mating purposes, which would contribute to the formation of the family unit from an evolutionary perspective

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A single mother is one of the least attractive mates possible. It means the male must expend resources into a child that offers him no genetic return.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a distinction, however, between getting your pleasure from beating small children and getting your pleasure from helping leprosy victims. Both certainly can give pleasure to those that are into that kind of thing, but you would have to be particularly obtuse or perverse to claim that both are equally selfish in pleasing themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

One person's paradigm entails an inferiority complex that requires him to assert violent dominance over children, and the other entails a compassionate worldview that requires him to help others to reap subjective benefit. Both have self-serving benefits, although the means taken toward reaping the subjective reward are different.

[pilliwinks]

That's right. I think the OP was asking 'what means do you take to reap your subjective rewards', not 'do you do what you want, or something else'.

And I think the general consensus of English speakers is that if the means you use to please yourself tend to damage or neglect others, you can be labelled 'selfish'. And if the means you use to please yourself tend to greatly prosper those in need at your expense, we tend to call you 'selfless'.

In my opinion, everybody reaches a point at which they accept that selflessness is the only lasting pleasure. Many even reach this point while they are alive /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I don't expect any of you young blokes to agree, but before you roll your eyes, ask your grandparents.

[deleteduser]

I live for love and knowledge

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was that it is only apparent kinship, not the reality of kinship that leads toward that investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that apparent kinship increases a father's investment in a child is pretty good evidence that relatedness is important in the parent-child bond.

The logic "well, since it is only apparent relatedness, and not actual relatedness that counts, so the genetic relatedness doenst actually matter" is completely invalid, since there is no way for a person to measure the relatedness of themseleves to the person they think is their child. The best way to judge relatedness is physical appearance, which they are clearly using to determine effort


[ QUOTE ]
Also, a single mother would be attractive to the male for mating purposes, which would contribute to the formation of the family unit from an evolutionary perspective

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A single mother is one of the least attractive mates possible. It means the male must expend resources into a child that offers him no genetic return.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first point highlights my first point...that a better means of identification would have evolved if it was that critical.

Your second point is best addressed in the thesis you sent. The introductory section, highlighting the issues I raised in segregating step relationships from adoptive relationships (or what they specifically refer to as "altruistic adoptions"), also mentions the attractiveness of the single mother for mating. There are two issues...quantity and quality of the species. You address the quality issue in the allocation of resources. Quantity is what leads to the attrativeness of the single mother, who is available for the males own biological children. The two needs are somewhat competitive, but I think its apparent from behavior that quantity is the dominant consideration.

A rough summary of the conclusion of the thesis is that the (evolutionary) kinship effect either doesnt exist, or isnt strong enough to overcome the environmental factors. Its a rather small study, but certainly is consistent with my own observations of more than 200 adoptive families.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
a better means of identification would have evolved if it was that critical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Expecting organisms to match geneotypes is too much. You are asking for Sharkey like levels of proof here.


[ QUOTE ]
Quantity is what leads to the attrativeness of the single mother,

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part, I agree... its actually lack of quantity, but yes. In general, you mate with roughly your quality. So, single mothers are attractive to males of lower quality, since they cant mate with higher quality females. They make the best of a bad situation.

[ QUOTE ]
but I think its apparent from behavior that quantity is the dominant consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Quality dominates. You generally see people of comparable mate quality.

[ QUOTE ]
A rough summary of the conclusion of the thesis is that the (evolutionary) kinship effect either doesnt exist, or isnt strong enough to overcome the environmental factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please reread it. The paper assumed that they would find taht adoptive children are treated worse than biological children. When they found that this wasnt the case, the paper tried to explain why.

For example

[ QUOTE ]
Adoption agencies screen potential adoptive parents rigorously. Parents and
households are scrutinized in order to assure a safe and nurturing environment awaits an
adopted child. These measures leave agencies with a “pool” of potential parents. The
respondents in this study were once members of such a pool. Their demonstrated low
divorce rate and high investment in their adopted children suggests that the adoption
agency is successful in screening for quality adoptive households. In effect, the methods
employed to select parents for the adoptive parent pool biased our sample. This bias
most likely explains the very low number of divorces seen in the sample presented here.
Sample bias may also explain why the parents we surveyed treated their children so
fairly, they may be exceptionally altruistic people.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
but certainly is consistent with my own observations of more than 200 adoptive families.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, people who choose to adopt tend to be far more altrusitic than the average person.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
That's right. I think the OP was asking 'what means do you take to reap your subjective rewards', not 'do you do what you want, or something else'.

And I think the general consensus of English speakers is that if the means you use to please yourself tend to damage or neglect others, you can be labelled 'selfish'. And if the means you use to please yourself tend to greatly prosper those in need at your expense, we tend to call you 'selfless'.

In my opinion, everybody reaches a point at which they accept that selflessness is the only lasting <u>pleasure</u>. Many even reach this point while they are alive /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I don't expect any of you young blokes to agree, but before you roll your eyes, ask your grandparents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Altruism is +EV for the self-serving individual.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Any attempt to convince you that you should be motivated by something other than your own self-interest is oppressive control." -hmkpoker

"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."
-Albert Einstein

Hmm...I guess one of you must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only one who is wrong is you, for making such and assumption. Living for the benefit of oneself and living for the benefit of others are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Unfortunately for you that's not what Einstein had in mind. Einstein's sense of "living for others" is, in fact, incompatible with only pursuing or being motivated by what is in your own self-interest.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
True. Unfortunately for you that's not what Einstein had in mind. Einstein's sense of "living for others" is, in fact, incompatible with only pursuing or being motivated by what is in your own self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he's wrong. You're only going to live for others either out of getting a "high" from helping people, or out of a socially-instilled guilt from not doing it.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True. Unfortunately for you that's not what Einstein had in mind. Einstein's sense of "living for others" is, in fact, incompatible with only pursuing or being motivated by what is in your own self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he's wrong. You're only going to live for others either out of getting a "high" from helping people, or out of a socially-instilled guilt from not doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your basis/support for this empirical claim?

I think you're confused about a few things here. Just because you gain some benefit from doing something to help others (say, feeling good about yourself when you give money to charity), does not mean that the reason you did it was so you could feel good about yourself, or that it was in your self-interest to do so (and it certainly doesn't mean that you must have thought that it was in your self-interest to do so--people do things all the time that they do not perceive to be in their own self-interest).

It can go against your self-interest to give away money, and yet you can do it because you understand that someone else needs the money more than you do. You may feel good about yourself for doing it, but that doesn't mean that the reason you gave to charity was so that you could feel good about yourself.

The prima facie case clearly favors the view that people sometimes act contrary to their own self-interest, and to their own perceived self-interest (they will report as much), so if you think otherwise you're obliged to tell a plausible story about why everything we do is/ought to be motivated by self-interest. That's why I ask what your support is for the empirical claim that we always act out of self-interest.

What you seem to be talking about is psychological egoism (PE)--the view that everything we do is motivated by self-interest. It's not that difficult to show that PE is false. There's an interesting discussion by Hume in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals about why PE is wrong.

Also, there are two claims here--one is that we are, infact, always motivated by self-interest, and the other is that we should be motivated by self-interest. They are distinct claims, one empirical, the other normative or moral. You seem to be conflating the two in some of your comments.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a better means of identification would have evolved if it was that critical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Expecting organisms to match geneotypes is too much. You are asking for Sharkey like levels of proof here.

I'm not asking for "proof", it is still what I would expect.


[ QUOTE ]
Quantity is what leads to the attrativeness of the single mother,

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part, I agree... its actually lack of quantity, but yes. In general, you mate with roughly your quality. So, single mothers are attractive to males of lower quality, since they cant mate with higher quality females. They make the best of a bad situation.

[ QUOTE ]
but I think its apparent from behavior that quantity is the dominant consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Quality dominates. You generally see people of comparable mate quality.

Totally disagree. Men will mate with whatever is available to achieve quantity.

[ QUOTE ]
A rough summary of the conclusion of the thesis is that the (evolutionary) kinship effect either doesnt exist, or isnt strong enough to overcome the environmental factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please reread it. The paper assumed that they would find taht adoptive children are treated worse than biological children. When they found that this wasnt the case, the paper tried to explain why.

For example

[ QUOTE ]
Adoption agencies screen potential adoptive parents rigorously. Parents and
households are scrutinized in order to assure a safe and nurturing environment awaits an
adopted child. These measures leave agencies with a “pool” of potential parents. The
respondents in this study were once members of such a pool. Their demonstrated low
divorce rate and high investment in their adopted children suggests that the adoption
agency is successful in screening for quality adoptive households. In effect, the methods
employed to select parents for the adoptive parent pool biased our sample. This bias
most likely explains the very low number of divorces seen in the sample presented here.
Sample bias may also explain why the parents we surveyed treated their children so
fairly, they may be exceptionally altruistic people.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this contradicts what I said. They expected kinship tendencies, they didnt find it. They tried to explain reasons why they didnt find it, but those are environmental factors that prevailed over kinship. You always try and find reasons why your hypothesis was incorrect, but it was still incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
but certainly is consistent with my own observations of more than 200 adoptive families.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, people who choose to adopt tend to be far more altrusitic than the average person.

[/ QUOTE ]

And altruism is a factor (possibly evolutionary as well) that overrides kinship.

[bearly]

would you care to provide a line of reasoning that might convince a rigorous thinker of the truth of your assertion?.................b

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
And altruism is a factor (possibly evolutionary as well) that overrides kinship.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a consistent observation. Despite the fact that a group that is selected because they are EXTREMELY ALTRUISTIC shows this, does not mean in general human's natural alruistism overrides kinship.

OK... the entire field of sociobiology is basically based on the fact that there are genetic reasons that underlie our social behaviour.

Saying that genetics play at most a minor role in bonding basically means that that entire discipline is making erroneous assumptions.

Now, if you are going to base your opinions on personal observartions, then I guess you can say that genetics doesnt play a role in bonding. But, science finds otherwise.

I dont see this going anywhere, so we should probably wrap up the hijack

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part, I agree... its actually lack of quantity, but yes. In general, you mate with roughly your quality. So, single mothers are attractive to males of lower quality, since they cant mate with higher quality females. They make the best of a bad situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this actually true? Is Brad hooking up with Angelina because he cant get a date?

I understand the reasoning, but I think with the amount of variables involved in relationships in this day and age that may well not be true anymore. One thing that occurs to me is that single mothers are more likely to be financially independent (out of necessity). Guys could be choosing these relationships because of evidence of good parenting skills with reference to the future, for almost any number of other reasons. It seems to me like there are WAY too many variables involved in modern society to determine what people are selecting for and why - the factors involved in dynamic human relationships are just too numerous to extrapolate anything meaningful.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this actually true? Is Brad hooking up with Angelina because he cant get a date?

[/ QUOTE ]

Follow up:

Are, in general, those two considered roughly comparable in terms of attractivness?


[ QUOTE ]
I understand the reasoning, but I think with the amount of variables involved in relationships in this day and age that may well not be true anymore. One thing that occurs to me is that single mothers are more likely to be financially independent (out of necessity). Guys could be choosing these relationships because of evidence of good parenting skills with reference to the future, for almost any number of other reasons. It seems to me like there are WAY too many variables involved in modern society to determine what people are selecting for and why - the factors involved in dynamic human relationships are just too numerous to extrapolate anything meaningful.

[/ QUOTE ]


Once again, its not like this is me arguing against you. Most of this is taken from introductory human behaviour classes.

Yes, there are variables. BUT, on average, people date others of roughly their quality. Do you want me to provide studies that support this as well?



EDIT: keep in mind that things like "good parenting skills" ARE factors of mate quality

[guesswest]

I am not really challenging the view that people date others of roughly their quality. I am challenging the idea that any particular characteristic is constant in being a measure of quality, including whether or not someone has existing offspring - they are all situation dependent.

There are few (if any) characteristics that are not a pro in situation x but a con in situation y.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And altruism is a factor (possibly evolutionary as well) that overrides kinship.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a consistent observation. Despite the fact that a group that is selected because they are EXTREMELY ALTRUISTIC shows this, does not mean in general human's natural alruistism overrides kinship.

Because the thesis labels these as "altruistic adoptions" dont conclude that the group is "exremely altruistic". The primary motivation in most adoptions is still to satisfy the natural urge to parent. Atlrusim is just one possible motivation. I also am not trying to maintain that any one factor is more influential than genetic kinship, but that gk doesnt necessarily dominate all the other factors combined.

OK... the entire field of sociobiology is basically based on the fact that there are genetic reasons that underlie our social behaviour.

Saying that genetics play at most a minor role in bonding basically means that that entire discipline is making erroneous assumptions.

Youve made a big leap here...from the genetic/evolutionary underpinnings of overall social behaivor to the balancing the motivations for one aspect of behavior negating an entire discipline. I dont know if that leap is justfied or not. If youre telling me that kinship bonding underlies the entire field, then the leap is justified. Otherwise I think youre overstating your case.

Now, if you are going to base your opinions on personal observartions, then I guess you can say that genetics doesnt play a role in bonding. But, science finds otherwise.

Again, I didnt say it doesnt play ANY role. It is stil a valid concluson from the thesis that it doesnt play an overriding role.

I dont see this going anywhere, so we should probably wrap up the hijack

[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

I found this very hard to answer, though it seems like an easy question. I think my relationships with other people is the main thing I enjoy about life and the thing that gives me the most pleasure. Possibly also knowledge and understanding but I'm afraid this might be more a case of enjoying being right.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
There are few (if any) characteristics that are not a pro in situation x but a con in situation y.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this isnt what the claim is.

Im saying that, in general, having a child makes a female significantly less attractive compared to females that dont have a child. That doesnt mean in specific cases a man might like a female with a child.


I was researching a term project today, and came accross this (http://www.geocities.com/call_me_ishmael_2002/kern.pdf) article. Its pretty relevant, though quite mathy. Its a mathematical model used to explain mating strategies.

Its nice to assume that humans have somehow evolved beyond the principles that dictate the behaviour of non-human animals. But, we havent. We're still animals... though, of course, far more complex socially.

FWIW, Ive actually met Reeve several times...I really like his work.