Morality

[infinite monkey]

It always comes back to sex, doesn't it?

WHO ain't thinkin' about the sexies every hour? I mean, less than 19 times a day.

[DanaC]

*grins*

[jimhelm]

tha's a lot of reading, Dani....

do you thin' you coulda sum up?
____________/

[Beest]

Originally Posted by jimhelm

tha's a lot of reading, Dani....

do you thin' you coulda sum up?
____________/
Attachment 35247

85% of statistics are just made up.
The person claimimg the numbers says they are based on several sources, two of the sources do not mention frequency of sexual thought, and the third that does has the opposite conclusion.

[DanaC]

Sure thing Jim:

Most of the sources cited by the author of The Female Brain, to back up her suggestion that men think about sex all the time and women hardly at all, relate to papers that said nothing about frequency of sexual thoughts in men or women. One of the very few studies whch the author of the rebuttal was able to find that seemed to show a higher frequency of sexual thoughts amongst men than women was a very small study, and fundamentally disagreed with the other author about those levels of frequency, with women thinking about sex around half as much as men (as opposed to the book under discussion, which suggests men think about sex once a minute and women once or twice a day).

Even the few studies that have been done into this and have shown any kind of a disparity, cannot answer to the complex reasons for that disparity, which may include different levels of comfort both in accepting/going with sexual thoughts and reporting said thoughts to researchers, both of which are far more likely to have a social or psychological basis rather than simple girl brain - v - boy brain chemical differences.

There are differences between the typical female and the typical male brain. But those differences, in almost every case are not as extreme as the differences between individual brains of either gender. Often when it's said that a particular characteristic is more common in women than in men, that basically means if you pick a random woman there's a X% chance she'll have that characteristic, and a X% chance for a random man. That percentage figure is often much less startling than the headlines would suggest. So, a characteristic that is considered 'male' and set out in such books as 'typically male' and given a great deal of weight as proof of vastly different male and female brains, may actually only be expected in a random male with a 55% probability. The fact that if you were to select a random woman you'd have a 45% likelihood that she'll show that characteristic, or a characteristic level of something, is conveniently ignored.

[jimhelm]

Originally Posted by Beest

85% of statistics are just made up.
The person claimimg the numbers says they are based on several sources, two of the sources do not mention frequency of sexual thought, and the third that does has the opposite conclusion.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Sure thing Jim:

Most of the sources cited by the author of The Female Brain, to back up her suggestion that men think about sex all the time and women hardly at all, relate to papers that said nothing about frequency of sexual thoughts in men or women. One of the very few studies whch the author of the rebuttal was able to find that seemed to show a higher frequency of sexual thoughts amongst men than women was a very small study, and fundamentally disagreed with the other author about those levels of frequency, with women thinking about sex around half as much as men (as opposed to the book under discussion, which suggests men think about sex once a minute and women once or twice a day).

Even the few studies that have been done into this and have shown any kind of a disparity, cannot answer to the complex reasons for that disparity, which may include different levels of comfort both in accepting/going with sexual thoughts and reporting said thoughts to researchers, both of which are far more likely to have a social or psychological basis rather than simple girl brain - v - boy brain chemical differences.

There are differences between the typical female and the typical male brain. But those differences, in almost every case are not as extreme as the differences between individual brains of either gender. Often when it's said that a particular characteristic is more common in women than in men, that basically means if you pick a random woman there's a X% chance she'll have that characteristic, and a X% chance for a random man. That percentage figure is often much less startling than the headlines would suggest. So, a characteristic that is considered 'male' and set out in such books as 'typically male' and given a great deal of weight as proof of vastly different male and female brains, may actually only be expected in a random male with a 55% probability. The fact that if you were to select a random woman you'd have a 45% likelihood that she'll show that characteristic, or a characteristic level of something, is conveniently ignored.

I did see a stat that said men use 7,000 words per day, where women more than double that. lol.

[DanaC]

:p


http://www.science20.com/news/do_wom..._more_than_men

For more than a decade, researchers have claimed that women use far more words each day than men. One set of numbers that is commonly tossed around is that women use 20,000 words per day compared to only 7,000 for men.

“These findings have been reported widely by national media and have entered the cultural mainstream,” James W. Pennebaker, chair of the Psychology Department and co-author of the study, said. “Although many people believe the stereotypes of females as talkative and males as reticent, there is no large-scale study that systematically has recorded the natural conversations of large groups of people for extended period of time.”

Refuting the popular stereotype that females talk more than men, researchers at The University of Texas at Austin have found women and men both use an average of 16,000 words each day.

For eight years, the psychology researchers have developed a method for recording natural language using the electronically activated recorder (EAR). The unobtrusive digital voice recorder tracks people’s interactions, including their conversations.

The researchers analyzed the transcripts of almost 400 university students in the United States and Mexico whose daily interactions were recorded between 1998 and 2004. The research participants could not control the EAR, which automatically records for 30 seconds every 12.5 minutes, and did not know when the device was on.

[henry quirk]

My questions: From where does 'morality' come? What is the source of morality? What makes one behavior 'right' or 'good' and another 'wrong' or 'evil'?


The 'where', the 'source', the standard establishing 'right'/'good' and 'wrong'/'evil', is the human individual as he or she susses out what's what for him- or her-self, as he or she determines what he or she values and what he or she does not value.

In many cases (for the lazy, weak, and stupid) there is little 'sussing' and a whole lot of adopting (of the values of others).

Nothing to be done about the lazy, weak, and stupid except tolerate them (or, as one can and will, end them).

Many of the responses in this thread (with the exception of two, and, before it degraded into a 'sexy party') are right on the money so I'll leave those be.


The two...


JB, in essence, points to God as source and arbiter of morality.

Which god? Whose god? What god?


Dana (and I maybe I'm misinterpreting her) believes morality is rooted in biology. In a sense, she's right...after all, each of us is wholly biological (no in-dwelling spirit that I can detect)...the problem with reductionism is it so often degrades into a greedy reductionism.

The human individual (I), to date, cannot be dissected down into piece, part, and process with any real hope of understanding anything beyond organ function.

The particular and peculiar complexity that is 'I' can only be understood by way of an assessment of the 'I' as a whole...to understand morality, then, one must contend with the individual (talk, debate, war).

Certainly: all the pieces, parts, and processes contribute (as influence) but none of these evolutionary inertias 'determines'.


Again: morality (a sometimes useful fiction) exists solely in the head of the one who susses such a thing out for him- or her-self, or, who adopts the thinking of another.

As I said over in the 'occupy' thread: 'you' should value what you like, as you like and can, just don't expect others to share your sentiment.

What you 'should' expect is for others (with views opposing yours) to as viciously defend themselves against you as you do against them.

Again: competing values (or 'might makes/is right').

Done.

[DanaC]

I believe the origins of morality to be a product of biological evolution. But that isn't the whole story. The nuances of morality are cultural/tribal/individual.

If morality exists within the individual mind, or 'inside the head of' an individual, then it is a function of brain activity.

[henry quirk]

"If morality exists within the individual mind, or 'inside the head of' an individual, then it is a function of brain activity."

A sterile way of saying, 'I think and choose'.

Again: greedy reductionism.

[Lamplighter]

And again, envy and greed. Aren't they part of the 7 Deadly's ?

HQ: Is this where you are coming from ultimately - Sin / Religion ?

[henry quirk]

That you, Lamp, interpret my use of 'value' and 'valuing' as envy and greed is your bag (says way more about you than me).

That's not what I meant; not how I used the word(s).

I formally reject your interpretation (and encourage you to offer your own explanation for morality).

#

"Is this where you are coming from ultimately - Sin / Religion?"

As I've described (more than once), reality (the world) as amoral, what makes you think I give a flip about sin or religion (hooey, crafted by others for the express purpose of 'control')?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"If morality exists within the individual mind, or 'inside the head of' an individual, then it is a function of brain activity."

A sterile way of saying, 'I think and choose'.

Again: greedy reductionism.

How is it sterile? How is it greedy reductionism?

Are you trying to say that things that go on 'inside the head of' individuals aren't the result of brain activity? Do they not take place in the brain, using the cognitive functions of that organ?

[BigV]

hq, you and I have a number of points on which we disagree, and they seem to revolve (mostly) around vocabulary. This is one of those times. In a recent post regarding Paterno's firing, you described your thoughts about child sexual abuse. And then you added the caveat that it was not a moral distinction.

???????

I disagree. Just as in this post above, your thoughts about it might be your own, but those thoughts *are* your expression of your morals. The feelings you expressed about child sexual abuse are widely shared among practically everyone in our society. That they exist "inside the head of individual you" doesn't make them less moral.

It is only greedy reductionism when you collapse the numerous posts and thoughts seen in this thread as "I think and choose". That is *not* the be all and end all of morality. I seriously doubt you believe that, and I'm even more certain that the other posters here believe that.

[henry quirk]

Dana, there's is nothing about an EEG reading of my brain activity, as I think about pizza, that will tell you or anyone 'why' I like pizza, why I prefer the pizza from Joe's over Sal's, or why I prefer pepperoni to sausage.

To discover those things you must talk to 'me', not dissect or reduce me.

More generally: to determine why I value this or that, you must consult the source of the valuing (me), not my components.

Yes, it's all brain (embedded in body) function...electricity and chemicals and whatnot...but consulting parts and process tells you nothing about the person, the 'I'.

Even a casual review of the state of neuroscience (and all the eggheads looking to build HAL) illustrates there's no understanding of how 'self' works...yes, again, it's all electricity and chemicals (but working in most mysterious ways).

As I say 'each of us is wholly biological (no in-dwelling spirit that I can detect)', but I-ness (subjectivity, recognition of self, self-editing, self-determination, self-de-liberation, etc.) has yet to be explained (though many attempt to 'explain away').

All beside the point.

Morality is an esoteric tool (crafted or adopted) one uses to navigate the world according to personal preference and choice (the preferences and choices of the 'I', not the preferences and choices of an organ collection, though that, indeed, is what each is).


And: for the record, I never 'try to say' anything...I say exactly what I choose to, in the way I choose to...read the words for what's there, not what you think 'might' be there.