*bangs her head against the wall*

[conuly]

How do you get through to people?

Okay, let me try. Male parents are fathers. Female parents are mothers. IF you wish to claim that men have no maternal instincts, ever, but women do, please don't use the argument "they couldn't possibly have the same instincts, because men have paternal instincts, and no I can't explain how they're different, there's a whole letter different, you moron!"

That's just confusing.

And when you finally realize that you're being slow, please, the appropriate response is most emphatically NOT "how many kids did you say you had?"

That. Is. Not. Relevant.

Interestingly, this conversation would never have started if the OP hadn't broken a cardinal rule - never say "I don't mean to be prejudiced" or "No offense" or anything even remotely resembling a disclaimer before saying something prejudiced of offensive. If you feel you need to say the former in order to say the latter, don't say it. If you really must say it, please, you're less likely to seem prejudiced or offensive if you just leave the stupid disclaimer out.

Free advice. Take it.

And yes, I know, I'm IN bed, I'm going to sleep now.

Link posted at request of kinda original poster. Do me a favor, tell me when she started using the word "typical", would you?

Comments

sigh.

[scottrossi.livejournal.com]

i know what you mean about the whole "i don't mean to be prejudiced." thing. i get it all the time. people are like, "i dont mean to be prejudiced, but i think homosexuality is disgusting." and then on the inside, i cry, on the outside, i have to put on the front that i respect their opinion, when i really want to hack at them with a machete.

Re: sigh.

[conuly]

Seriously. The idea that you need a disclaimer is a BIG WARNING SIGN.

The other day, there was a post in customers_suck:

I don't mean to be racist, but the other day a group of asian teens came in and was rude.

After that sentence, race wasn't mentioned at all. The mention of race was completely superflous. In no world would she say "20 white teens", and all rudeness was better attributed to their being teenagers than their being asian (sorry, duckies), but then she had the nerve to get upset when I suggested she just take the reference to race out if she thought she had to apologise for it.

[toastedtuna.livejournal.com]

I don't mean to be biased, but I hate it when people can't explain their arguments and find the weakest, most lame thing in the world to say, and expect people to accept it as their final answer.

Men can't have maternal instincts because they have paternal instincts? OK. I understand what the person is TRYING to convey. It's stupid, but I get it. It's very weak. There is no difference between paternal and maternal, except that one refers to men and one to women. That's it. That's the ONLY difference.

It's like maternal grandparents & paternal grandparents. One refers to the child's mother's side of the family, and the other refers to the child's father's side of the family.

Someone should bait your OP and see if paternal grandparents never have maternal feelings because they are paternal.

Re: sigh.

[toastedtuna.livejournal.com]

Ugh. I agree with you. No need to bring race into it. A group of teens just happened to be rude, and it doesn't matter what ethnicity they were. They could have been anything, but just HAPPENED to be Asian. So what?

Do they have some kind of special rudeness other people lack?

Maybe because they were Asian, and so hard working, they were working hard at being rude?

Or maybe they were rude because they're so good at math.

Or maybe they were rude because they are sick of doing laundry for white people.

Or maybe they were rude because their mothers own nail salons and none of the teens could get an appointment in their mothers' shops?

GEEZ!

[conuly]

*gigglesnorts*

She's finally calmed down enough to give an example. ONE example. Her and her husband/partner.

Yeah. I already know that different people have different views on parenting, sweetie. Now, please, can you prove that your differences were caused by gender and not something else, say, upbringing?

And I love:

Oh, I can't possibly tell you what paternal instincts are because I'm not a father and can't say what men feel!

If that's the case, then how the hell do you think you know that they don't have the same exact damn "instincts" as mothers!

I dont' believe in parental instinct anyway. And when I do agree it might exist, I think it can be wrong - for example, if you're in a plane and it depressurises, your instinct is to put the mask on your kid first, but the smart thing to do is to put it on yourself first.

Re: sigh.

[scottrossi.livejournal.com]

fucking stupid ignorant people. like i try to not see race at all. i have a diverse smattering of friends of all everything, and i admit, sometimes it is hard not to stereotype when they fit them, (as in the sassy black friends i happen to have, who fully embody everything about sass) but really, stuff like that is uncalled for.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

This one reminds me of an idiot that I debate every once in a while in another community. The format is:

*Question?*
*Dodge*
*Question?*
*Dodge*
*Question!
*But I've alreeeady aaanswered thaaaat! Yer stupid and you can't read and you're making stuff up ANYWAY!*

[hopefulnebula]

That is pitiful. Yet somehow engrossing. *keeps reading*

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I am so goddamned FUCKING tired of the smarmy non-response "Oh, you don't have any children? Then you could neeeveeerrr understand. When you give birth to a baby, THEN you'll understand."

Smirk smirk smug sneer *strangle*.

If you have to give birth to understand being a parent/mother, then how the hell do the thousands of adoptive parents (around a hundred thousand annually (http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview.html#head))ever manage it? Or are you actually trying to say that adoptive parents are just naturally inferior to birth parents?

If you automatically acquire these "maternal instincts" when you give birth, how come there are children neglected/abused/murdered by their own mothers?

Gahhh.

[conuly]

See, that *might've* made sense for my statement that I don't believe there really are maternal instincts - I don't really believe that humans have instincts at all, at least not in the sense most people use the word.

But that's not what we were discussing on the thread.

[feathered.livejournal.com]

I was just reading about this issue in a psychology book the other day... in what sense do you think that people have instincts, if they have them? I am burningly curious.

[conuly]

My definition of instincts seems to be very different from many people's definition.

When a female cat and a male cat love each other very much are "in the mood", they know what to do. That's an instinct. When the female cat gives birth to fuzzywuzzy babies, she knows how to take care of them. This probably is also an instinct, because I doubt she remembers her early infancy.

When a human hears a baby crying and wants to pick the baby up, that might be an instinct - however, it might also be the result of memories of seeing babies being picked up by parents, people saying that it helps calm the baby down, that sort of thing. Regardless, it doesn't vary from male to female - parents generally want to calm a crying baby by picking them up. Additionally, this can be a bad thing - after a certain point, you don't want to run to your kid every time he or she cries, because then they'll cry every time they want something.

Many people say seem to use instincts to mean a combination of reflexes, beliefs, and, apparently, cravings. So if you were raised being given snacks to calm down, your "instincts" would say "feed the baby whenever he cries". But I don't think those are instincts. I think they're reactions that you learned.

I'm irked, and not typing clearly. Forgive. Did you see the toast quote?

[feathered.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did see the toast quote, and I meant to reply and say thanks for posting it, but I got distracted and forgot. Sorry!

I mostly pretty much agree with you on this issue, actually, and I rather thought that's what you'd say. I asked because, like I said, I'd been reading about it and wanted to hear if what you thought coincided with what I'd read in my book.

Personally, I tend to think that what many people call instincts are either purely conditioned or are present, but only in limited forms and as weak urges that can be overridden. Or something. I think the thing about picking up the crying baby has as much to do with the parent being conditioned than anything instinctual. You've read in your books to pick your baby up when it cries. So you do. Baby stops crying. Unpleasant stimulus is removed, behaviour is reinforced, and is therefore more likely to happen again, thus producing silly people to rant and rave about maternal and paternal instincts on livejournal. I like to call it "Skinnerizing" after good old B.F.

Interestingly, I was just reading about the theory of a neurologist called Tierney who thinks that instincts are just behaviours that are most appropriate in a situation -- biologically learned. As effectual behaviours is more likely to keep an organism alive long enough to reproduce, it's more likely to teach its offspring the same thing, making it into what we call instincts over time. I like the theory because it rather fits with the issue of humans having seemingly less instincts than animals who aren't as long-lived. Because animals that live longer experience so many environmental variations and different situations in their lifetimes, they are less likely to develope these generation-spanning behaviours that eventually become what we call "instincts" than, say, mosquitos or something that only live one year...

Of course, I'm not actually sure that there's any research to back it up, but it's good brain candy. I hope I explained it in a semi-coherent manner -- I'm tired and ill and I've been at work for far too long, so I'm not making any sense to myself. I wish I knew Tierney's first name beyond just her initials (A.J.) because then I could give proper references to her and you could look her up to get the ungarbled version. Oh well. Sorry!

[conuly]

*nods*

I *occasionally* will use "instinct" to mean "natural reaction", but only because it makes sense, and because other people also use it that way.

So, if you're in an airplane, and it depressurizes, I feel it's fair to say that your instinct to help your child first is wrong.

But that's not really an instinct. It's a natural (emotional) reaction that says "omigod! my kid could die! I must save him/her!" An instinct would involve some sort of knowledge.

[weemumlessmngrl.livejournal.com]

That is exactly what I meant. You were at one point trying to say that you didn't believe that maternal instincts existed, and my point was that if you've never had children, you wouldn't know. I didn't mean it to be some insult or "swarmy comment" or anything more than that.

I think I even said in a comment that when I was a kid and my dad would be talking about instincts, I thought he was just lying to guilt me into stuff. It wasn't until Lorelei was born that I realized that he might have been actually telling me the truth.

[conuly]

But I don't think *any* instincts exist - and I certainly think that most people use the word so vaguely that it's not worth discussing.

Even if I did think they existed, I'd need to see some hard evidence to accept your idea that men and women have different sets of instincts.

Swarmy comment? Do you mean snarky? You can't mean smarmy.... *is confuzzled*

[conuly]

Oh, wait, you do. I need some sleep.

Incidentally, because I *know* people take this the wrong way, I wasn't asking to say "wow, you can't spell, ur stoopid!". I was asking because I was actually confused.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"How do you get through to people?"

Short answer: you don't. "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain", remember? What makes you think you've got any chance against it?

I say this because I've seen you perseveratin' like a maniac lately, trying to get people to be logical. Perseveration is a super-power, and like any other super-power, can be used for either Good or Evil. Now, I'm not saying it's BIG Evil to correct other peoples' spelling unasked, or to insist they acknowledge that their opinions haven't got a shred of scientific evidence to back them up... and I'm sure your intention is to be helpful and informative... but it IS "little evil", i.e. tedious and kind of obnoxious.

Also futile, because you're not going to change anyone's mind that way. You could have every fact in the world on your side, and they could have nothing but "Well, my neighbor's sister read it in the Midnight Star", and it wouldn't matter. Unless you ENJOY getting into futile arguments online, there's really no point to doing it.

Now, me, I do enjoy it sometimes - at my other site, there's almost always a fight going on somewhere; if not, it's a moment's work to start one with one or more of the Usual Suspects. I jump in with my +3 Sword of Logic and proceed to lay waste to all contenders - nobody wins, nobody ever convinces anyone else of anything, but presumably everybody has a good time.

If that sounds like your idea of a good time, you may wish to seek out a more belligerent site than Livejournal in which to pick fights - UseNet is hard-core, so I wouldn't advise going there unless you've got extremely thick skin AND professional-grade firewalls, but there's all kinds of flame-friendly places on Yahoo.

If getting in fights with strangers over moot points is not your idea of a good time, then perhaps you need to think seriously about why you've been doing it so often lately.

About the "instinct" thing - no, there is no evidence that the "maternal instinct" exists in humans. Humans do have some instincts (http://www.grandin.com/references/genetics.html) - the startle reflex is one; the tendency for infants to direct their gaze toward a face, or a pattern resembling one, is another - not a lot, though. Most human behavior is learned.

Hatch a baby alligator, and even though she's never seen another alligator in all her days, when she gets big and you let her go in the swamp, she will automatically do all the things alligators do, including what passes for parenting behavior among alligators. Raise a baby monkey without parenting, and it will never be a successful parent, because primates aren't hard-wired the way birds, reptiles, and some mammals are.

Onn a tangential but related note, check out this cool essay by Temple Grandin (http://www.grandin.com/references/genetics.html)

[conuly]

If getting in fights with strangers over moot points is not your idea of a good time, then perhaps you need to think seriously about why you've been doing it so often lately.

I always do. And then I come out of the fog and it's like "what the fuck was that?"

Can I ask a favor? Next time you think I'm headed down the primrose path again, could you come smack me awake? Don't worry if you don't want to/can't/other word. 'salright either way.

[conuly]

Actually, interestingly, I've made a number of friends after having a stupid fight with them.

I don't understand this.

So I guess it serves a practical purpose after all.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"As effectual behaviours is more likely to keep an organism alive long enough to reproduce, it's more likely to teach its offspring the same thing, making it into what we call instincts over time."

As a matter of fact, that is not what we call instinct. Instinct is untaught, unlearned, pre-programmed behavior. Sounds like Tierney may have unwittingly fallen smack into Lamarck's fallacy (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/15817?&print=yes).


"I like the theory because it rather fits with the issue of humans having seemingly less instincts than animals who aren't as long-lived. Because animals that live longer experience so many environmental variations and different situations in their lifetimes, they are less likely to develope these generation-spanning behaviours that eventually become what we call "instincts" than, say, mosquitos or something that only live one year... "

Uh, what about turtles, then? Sea turtles, for instance, which can live at least three or four times as long as humans and, being wide-ranging sea dwellers, may encounter a wide variety of environmental conditions? Turtles are hard-wired - not that they have no capacity for learning, but they are primarily creatures of instinct.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Well, sure, hon, if you want, and if I happen to be here when you're doing it. I haven't wanted to say, because for all I knew, you might well be getting in fights as a sort of hobby, same as I sometimes do - LOL, I know it's a dumb hobby, but most hobbies are kinda dumb.

I started getting the impression that it wasn't that with you, though - that when you jump in, you don't really see that doing so is going to get you into a fight, until you're already in one, and then you want out, but it's hard for you to find the way.

I'm wondering if it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the neurotypical mind (http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/neurotypicality.htm), which tends to put far more value on perceived status in the social hierarchy than on truth, fact, or correctness. Telling people they're wrong, no matter how gently or tactfully, is generally perceived as a challenge to their social status.

This is why you keep getting these irrelevant "counters" about your age, your reproductive history, etcetera. They're irrelevant if the discussion is purely a matter of determining what is true or logical - but it's not. To your opponents, truth and logic are irrelevant; the encounter is about establishing dominance - age and progeny being the classic female primate status-indicators, they are very relevant in that context.

If you view most human behavior as gambits in a huge ongoing game of "Who's Alpha?", you won't be far off the mark. Like it says in that song The Gambler:

"If you're going to play the game, you better learn to play it right,
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away, know when to run."

Basically, if it's not amusing you, it's time to walk away. If you're getting upset, it's time to run. No worries that that'll make your opponents believe victory is theirs: it doesn't matter what they believe, because Online Debate is a game nobody can ever really win.

[weemumlessmngrl.livejournal.com]

Hey, don't question the usage of "smarmy"... that's how one of your friends described me.

[conuly]

I'm not, actually. At first, I really didn't know what you meant, so I tried to figure it out. Then I saw that you'd been replying to somebody else who had called you smarmy, and it made sense.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

If you really must say it, please, you're less likely to seem prejudiced or offensive if you just leave the stupid disclaimer out.
My 11-year-old sister has yet to learn this.

But as to what this person was saying, I think he's actually right.