If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... The problem is that you keep attributing this to instinct, This is really the crux of our disagreement. You do not seem to believe that people have instincts and I believe they are primarily driven by them. I think we could argue all year long and never settle it because we are never going to agree on this. This is a crutch being used to avoid the finer points of the discussion. I've seen no one claim that people don't have instincts. Rather, the idea that "people have instincts in some cases, so I'm going to assume that they do in this case" without any sort of support is the notion that is being rightly questioned. P. Tierney |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
I didn't say people didn't have instincts. I said that
they play a very minor role in this compared to experience and socialization. If you believe it to be biological instinct, how do you explain cultural variation? People can ignore their instincts, like I did for 3 years while I worked rather than being with my dd, and like the guy who always waited until the end of his meal to drink even if he was thirsty. Deciding not to do what your instincts tell you to do does not mean the instincts are not there. People frequently ignore their instincts about dangerous people because they are afraid of looking odd. Plus, as I already said, I am sure instinct like all things varies from person to person. I would say when you live in different places around different people, you would need to behave differently to get along. That would be cultural variation, but it would not change your instincts for things. You may decide to go against your instinct to fit in with a culture, or because that is really the best option you can do under the circumstances, but it will not necessarily change your gut feeling about the situation. And going back to my original point, I was talking about how it made my dh and I feel bad to switch roles. For me it made me feel bad on a very gut level which I think was from me going against my instincts (cause I am really not too worried at this point in my life about following social norms :-), but if anybody wants to think I was feeling bad due to violating some social norm, feel free :-) KC |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
|
#304
|
|||
|
|||
|
#305
|
|||
|
|||
|
#306
|
|||
|
|||
toto wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:31:07 GMT, "P. Tierney" wrote: Proper preparation for baseball involves loads of cardiovascular exercise. That's at the higher levels, anyway. I'm not sure how much pregame exercise is done with children in practices at the Little League level, or even how much they practice. I think it depends on the age, the area and the particular leaque, but mostly, I haven't seen kids doing much in the way of training until high school. I have four grandchildren in various phases of little league. They practices where they do skills, and in addition they do some running. The oldest one has (and has had for some time) additional coaching outside of the actual practices. The youngest one (who is 5 and is playing at the first grade level-coach pitch where almost all the kids are 2 years older) has practice once or twice a week and a game twice a week. The oldest one has practice once a week, batting practice, pitching practice, and has as many as 3 games a week. This is in Florida where they play year round. I think Florida and California (and to a certain extent Texas) are the big hotbeds of little league. Soccer has more actual aerobic exercise and so does swimming. grandma Rosalie |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Banty wrote:
In article .com, Melania says... There's been the odd time I've come home incensed over something someone said to me about my child, or insinuated about my parenting, and relayed it to to dh, who responded, "That's not an insult. Or even a criticism. You're just assuming it is." Doesn't happen very often, but it's a wake-up for me that the problem was likely that I was already feeling sensitive or uncertain, and then turned a (likely innocent) comment into an attack. Yes - definately something to consider. I had my sister mad at me for *years* because I told her about her house "oh I would have painted it blue". (That's all I meant - I didn't mean 'you're stupid for painting it yellow with brown shutters', it's just that I picured it blue. ) I'm going to have to work on this - dh is getting very irritated at me - of course now we are together 24/7 (retired and traveling) and I think he needs some time off, but every comment I make he takes as a criticism, and mostly it is REALLY just an observation. Even opinions stated in a more openly judgemental way are meant often less strictly judgemental by the speaker. I remember in more touchy days getting irrritated at people saying "You want to....", before I came to my senses and realized all they really mean is "It's usually good to...." And I take the English folks' word on it that ".... don't you think." does *not* mean "if you only took a moment to think about it, you would have agreed with me." ;-) Even true judgements, judgementally spoken, are often passing. Some people are just more outspoken. Some just lack any inhibiting factor between brain and mouth, and may express a different opinion the next day. Cheers, Banty (Whaddaya MEAN, "You want to...", only *I* know what I WANT!!) grandma Rosalie |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
toto wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:18:26 -0500, Ericka Kammerer wrote: wrote: The problem is that you keep attributing this to instinct, This is really the crux of our disagreement. You do not seem to believe that people have instincts I didn't say people didn't have instincts. I said that they play a very minor role in this compared to experience and socialization. If you believe it to be biological instinct, how do you explain cultural variation? Interestingly, there is a book that talks about some of this in regard to an instinct to nurture. http://www.henryholt.com/holt/tendinginstinct.htm While I do believe that men and women can certainly take on the other's roles, it seems that studying men and women can give different conclusions about things like stress. Sure, there are lots of interesting things out there, including this work. I also don't dispute that men and women can tend to be wired differently. But it's easy to make too much of these things, and it's also easy to attribute too much to biology. For instance, there have been studies of men as primary caregivers for children (shamefully few, but there are some) that when *allowed*, men do a whole lot of things that look an awful lot like the nurturing women do. They respond quickly and appropriately to their babies' cries, and their physiologic responses to baby's cries were similar to women's (aside from letdowns, of course ;-) They bond to their babies. Yes, they often do things somewhat *differently*, but they are every bit as bonded to their babies and every bit as capable of nurturing them (aside from being able to provide breastmilk) as women--though lots of things often get in the way of men bonding and nurturing in this way because of social beliefs about how men and babies (and fathers and mother) ought to be interacting. Similarly, although we know there are some differences between men's and women's brains, I think it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number of other things that have been said. Best wishes, Ericka |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
My problem is with your belief that EVERY mother who works ought to
feel bad, and if she doesn't, she is lacking in maternal instincts, thus stating that YOUR way is the best way for "proper" mothers. Nope, I said I thought the majority wouldn't like it. And I never said anybody was lacking in maternal instinct, just that we had varying amounts, but that all were acceptable as long as children survived. KC |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Ericka Kammerer wrote: wrote: I didn't say people didn't have instincts. I said that they play a very minor role in this compared to experience and socialization. If you believe it to be biological instinct, how do you explain cultural variation? People can ignore their instincts, like I did for 3 years while I worked rather than being with my dd, and like the guy who always waited until the end of his meal to drink even if he was thirsty. Deciding not to do what your instincts tell you to do does not mean the instincts are not there. People frequently ignore their instincts about dangerous people because they are afraid of looking odd. Plus, as I already said, I am sure instinct like all things varies from person to person. But, for instance, how do you explain that when societal variables change, the number of women who choose SAHM vs. WOHM change? I don't really understand you question because I feel like I would just be repeating what was said above to answer. I think it strains credulity to imagine that there are changes in instincts that just happen to coincide with other social factors. No, instincts don't change. People do not have to follow their instincts. I would say when you live in different places around different people, you would need to behave differently to get along. That would be cultural variation, but it would not change your instincts for things. You may decide to go against your instinct to fit in with a culture, or because that is really the best option you can do under the circumstances, but it will not necessarily change your gut feeling about the situation. But when societal variables change *within the same culture*, the SAHM vs. WOHM mix changes--thus implying that something other than instinct (which is, by definition, relatively constant) is the thing that makes more of a difference. When more women started WOH in the 70s and later, both the women's movement and a recession were going on. Financial need would make more women have to do what made them uncomfortable. Then, when times improved in the 90s, more women who could afford to not work started being SAHM again. It is hard to pin the movement of women into the workforce on social changes when economic changes were happening simultaneously. Perhaps you have other examples. And going back to my original point, I was talking about how it made my dh and I feel bad to switch roles. For me it made me feel bad on a very gut level which I think was from me going against my instincts (cause I am really not too worried at this point in my life about following social norms :-), but if anybody wants to think I was feeling bad due to violating some social norm, feel free :-) No, that's not what it is about. I don't think anyone doubts that *YOU* felt bad doing what you did, and you can attribute it to anything personal that you like. But to attribute it to something global like instinct (and to explain variation by saying that some folks are just deficient in the instinct category) takes it far beyond the realm of the personal (and frankly, it flirts with something in the realm of insult). That's what I really don't get. I never meant it as an insult. I just knew it made me feel bad in a very gut way, and when I have those very gut feelings, that is what I think of as my instinct. I just assume not everyone feels that way, so there is the varying instinct. I am very sorry anyone got offended by that. Really, if there is such a thing as biological instinct operating at this level, it makes utterly no sense to on the one hand insist it's a biological imperative and on the other admit a great deal of variation in the same gene pool. It just doesn't work that way. If there were that much variation in the gene pool, those instincts would have been washed away years ago. I don't see why. However, I think it's also very misleading to imagine that you are outside social norms. *EVERYONE* is affected by socialization, and at an extremely deep level. Without it, we can't make sense of our social world. It's not just a matter of being above peer pressure or some such thing that is relatively easily ignored. It's not just the stuff you'll find in an etiquette book. Socialization exists at a level as deep as language and the fundamental ways we think about our world and our place in it, and we all have lots and lots of unexamined assumptions based on our socialization--even those who pride themselves on their ability to be introspective and call some of these assumptions into the foreground for consideration. If you had to think consciously about the zillions of things you do every day that are affected by your socialization, you'd be crippled. Lol, I am crippled, but in my feet :-) So, to attribute something like this to socialization rather than to instinct isn't to make light of it or to deny it's importance to you. It does, however, prove less insulting to those who were socialized differently or who chose a different path despite their socialization. Sorry anyone is insulted by me thinking that people have maternal instincts that make them want to stay with their babies. KC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good Newsweek article | Sue | General | 353 | March 22nd 05 03:19 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | March 3rd 04 10:06 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |