Tuesday, January 12, 2021

The Western mind is different

Henrich is at his usual barrow below but his explanations are dubious. His central claim that the Catholic church disrupted traditional family relationships with its sexual restrictions seems implausible. It is true that the church restricted cousin marriage but restrictions on cousin marriage are ancient and and the church would seem to be about average in the degree of consanguinuity it allowed.

Cousin marriage is certainly endemic among Muslim populations but that is a consequence of the ease of divorce under Sharia law. There is nothing comparable elsewhere

So is there another explanation for the unusual Western mind? There is but it wades into politically dangerous waters these days. But let me go wading.

The plain fact is that the breakout of modern civilization that was produced by Western minds was not exactly Western. It would more accurately be described as a creation of German or Germanic minds. The seminal innovations -- from the printing press to the steam train were the product of minds in two Germanic nations -- Germany and Britain. In about 500AD Roman Britannia was conquered and subdued by Germans mainly from the West Baltic area and their genes are predominant in Britain to this day.

And the influence of both countries on nearby countries was great. To some extent German thinking was transmitted along with German technological innovations.

So why was German thinking different? I have written at some length on that elsewhere

The database that dominates our understanding of human psychology derives primarily – approximately 95% of it in fact – from populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic (Weird), and these Weird populations turn out to be distinct in many ways.

Unlike much of the world today – and most people who have ever lived – Weird people are highly individualistic, self-obsessed, guilt-ridden and analytical in their thinking style. They focus on themselves – their attributes, accomplishments and aspirations – over relationships and roles. When reasoning, Weird people tend to look for abstract categories with which to organise the world. They simplify complex phenomena by breaking them down into discrete elements and assigning properties – whether by imagining types of particles, pathogens or personalities.

Despite their seeming self-obsession, Weird people tend to stick to impartial rules and can be quite trusting, fair and cooperative toward strangers. Emotionally, Weird people are relatively shameless, less constrained by the eyes of others, but often wracked by guilt as they fail to live up to their own self-imposed standards.

Where did these psychological differences come from and why are European populations, along with their cultural descendants in places like North America, at the extreme end of these global distributions?

A growing body of research traces these psychological differences to the structure of families – what anthropologists call kin-based institutions. This work suggests that our minds calibrate and adapt to the social worlds we encounter while growing up. Until recently, most societies have been undergirded by intensive kin-based institutions built around large extended families, clans, cousin marriage, polygamy and many other kinship norms that regulate and tighten social life. These institutions persist in many parts of the world today, especially in rural areas.

By contrast, many European populations have been dominated by monogamous nuclear families – a pattern labeled the “European Marriage Pattern” by historians – since at least the end of the Middle Ages.

Testing this idea, analyses reveal that people from societies rooted in more intensive kin-based institutions show greater conformity, less individualism, more holistic thinking, fewer guilty experiences and less willingness to trust strangers. These patterns emerge whether we compare countries, regions within countries or second-generation immigrants from different backgrounds living in the same place. As the first and often the most important institution we humans encounter upon entering the world, the structure of our family networks plays a central role in explaining global psychological diversity.

But why do families organise themselves in such different ways across societies, and why were European families already peculiar by the end of the Middle Ages?

While the diversity of kin-based institutions found around the world has been influenced by many factors, the European Marriage Pattern traces primarily to a religious mutation. Beginning in late antiquity, the branch of Christianity that evolved into the Roman Catholic Church began to gradually promulgate a set of prohibitions and prescriptions related to marriage and the family. The Church, for example, banned cousin marriage, arranged marriage and polygamous marriage. Unlike other Christian sects, the Church slowly expanded the circle of “incestuous” relationships out to sixth cousins by the 11th Century.

Despite often facing stout resistance, this enterprise slowly dissolved the complex kin-based institutions of tribal Europe, leaving independent nuclear households as a cultural ideal and common pattern.

To test the idea that the medieval Church has shaped contemporary psychological variation, it is possible to exploit the unevenness of this historical process by tracking the diffusion of bishoprics across Europe from AD 500 to 1500. Analyses show that Europeans from regions that spent more centuries under the influence of the Church are today less inclined to conform, more individualistic and show greater trust and fairness towards strangers.

Globally, national populations with longer historical exposures to the Church not only show weaker kin-based institutions, but are psychologically “Weirder” today.

Most of us might prefer to think of ourselves as independent, rational thinkers. But how we think, feel and reason – including our inclinations toward conformity and preferences for analytical explanations – has been shaped by historical events, cultural heritages and incest taboos that stretch back centuries or even millennia.

Understanding how history has shaped our minds is part of exploring and embracing our diversity.

One of Big Tech's Own Lobbed a Punch Against Them... On Behalf of Trump

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is rarely, if ever, on the side of conservatives. In fact, they usually favor Democrats' policies and decisions. But now the civil rights organization is speaking out about Big Tech's decision to permanently ban President Donald Trump from their platforms.

According to the ACLU, Americans should be concerned about the "unchecked power" that social media platforms have.

"For months, President Trump has been using social media platforms to seed doubt about the results of the election and to undermine the will of voters," ACLU Senior Legal Counsel Kate Ruane said in a statement. "We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions – especially when political realities make those decisions easier."

The organization reminded followers and supporters that the same thing could happen to them.

"President Trump can turn his press team or Fox News to communicate with the public, but others – like many Black, Brown, and LGTBQ activists who have been censored by social media companies – will not have that luxury. It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparently to everyone," the statement concluded.

Conservatives have been concerned about Big Tech censorship for years. It's something we've all talked about in depth, especially with debates over Section 230 protection.

It's a breath of fresh air to see a left-leaning organization admit that what happened to President Trump and other conservatives could happen to anyone else. We never get that kind of admission from left-leaning figures. They know they're safe because their friends in Silicon Valley share their political views.

Free speech and a free press are important aspects of our society. Having a tech company decide who should and should not be allowed on their platforms – including the leader of the free world – is a dangerous thing. Yes, they're a private company and they have a right to do what they think is best. But maybe it's time to address the elephant in the room and admit that stifling content that goes against their narrative isn't healthy and only causes further division. And the only ones who can address this issue, in full, is Congress.

This Social Network is Gaining 10,000 Users Per Hour After Trump's Twitter Ban

The CEO of Gab, a conservative-friendly social media site, claims it’s picking up 10,000 users an hour following Twitter banning President Trump.

“The traffic just keeps growing hang tight, even more servers on the way today,” Gab CEO Andrew Torba wrote on the site Saturday.

He also wrote: “500,000+ new users today. 18 million visits. You don’t need an account to use the site. The Silicon Valley Exodus has begun. Get in the Ark. The best is yet to come.”

Gab, which launched in 2016, calls itself a “social network that champions free speech, individual liberty, and the new free flow of information online.”

Following his permanent suspension, Trump used the official @Potus account to accuse Twitter of “banning free speech” and announced he is “negotiating with various other sites, and will have a big announcement soon, while we also look at the possibilities of building out our own platform in the near future. We will not be SILENCED!”

“As I have been saying for a long time, Twitter has gone further and further in banning free speech, and tonight, Twitter employees have coordinated with the Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me — and YOU, the 75,000,000 great patriots who voted for me,” the president tweeted from the @Potus account.

“Twitter may be a private company, but without the government’s gift of Section 230, they would not exist for long. I predicted this would happen,” he tweeted. “We will not be SILENCED! Twitter is not about FREE SPEECH. They are all about promoting a Radical Left platform where some of the most vicious people in the world are allowed to speak freely. STAY TUNED!”

Torba said he’s been in touch with Trump’s team.

“I’m going to be upfront with you: I am in the process of connecting with President Trump’s team as we speak,” wrote Torba in a message posted to his website. “The President’s Gab account is already reserved with hundreds of thousands of followers. We need to massively expand our server capacity and very quickly.”

Meanwhile, Parler, a social network that pitches itself as a “free speech” alternative to Twitter and Facebook, is being censored.

Psychologist reveals why boys and girls SHOULD be raised differently

This lady sounds a bit mixed up to me. She is rejecting the now rather old idea that males and females should be the same. But what she is advocating seems little different from that. She "believes both sexes must be taught to embrace masculinity and femininity"

A more traditional view is that men should be men and women will be glad of it. When one looks at media reports of romances between public figures such as sportsmen and movie stars it is very noticeable that attractive and very feminine women regularly team up with big, well-built and fit men -- often sportsmen -- who give no signs of anything feminine. The partners concerned could be almost a parody of traditional sex roles. Women with choices like real men, not wimps. A big fit body attracts and all the rest is incidental.

Some years back, I actually did some survey research into the androgyny hypothesis -- that it is healthiest for people to be big on both male and female traits. I found the opposite. The healthiest were those who rejected both male and female traits. They rejected stereotyped ways of behaving in favour of what they individually were

So boys should NOT be told to embrace femininity. They should be set free to become whatever is right for them. They should be given freedom to become themselves

A psychologist has revealed why 'boys and girls should be raised differently' in an era where calls for the two to be treated equally steadily grow louder.

Mother-of-two Megan de Beyer believes both sexes must be taught to embrace masculinity and femininity beyond the socially constructed roles they are conditioned to identify with.

The South African author, who in February published 'How to Raise a Man: The modern mother's guide to parenting her teenage son', says a healthy balance of the two traits is essential for developing independence and emotional intelligence.

Parenting should change at the age of 11, Ms de Beyer reveals, right before adolescence when the bulk of emotional maturing and the 'unfolding of masculinity' occurs.

'We need to become more conscious with our parenting and recognise the subtle but complex difference between socially constructed identities of boys and girls,' Ms de Beyer told Daily Mail Australia from her farm on the outskirts of Cape Town.

Her argument contrasts with the iconic activist slogan 'raise boys and girls the same way', widely used in the '#metoo' movement to discourage cultures of toxic masculinity and the wrongful protection of powerful perpetrators of sexual abuse.

The phrase - which has become synonymous with gender equality campaigns and is often emblazoned on T-shirts, posters and bumper stickers - calls for children of all sexes and orientations to be treated equally.

But Ms de Beyer believes instilling values typically associated with the opposite sex is the key to creating a more compassionate society that supports men and women in achieving their goals, whatever they may be.

Parents subconsciously raise boys to be strong, independent and less expressive of their emotions, Ms de Beyer says, which can leave them feeling 'disconnected and isolated' and prone to mental health issues.

In 2017 roughly 75 percent of Australians who died by suicide were men, according to figures from the Black Dog Institute.

Meanwhile Ms de Beyer said girls are instinctively brought up to be accommodating, understanding and less assertive, which can lead to insecurity and a lack of confidence in adulthood.

How to raise boys to be more in touch with their emotions

1. Self-awareness: Mothers must be clear in their own definition of masculinity.

They must understand the complex and multi-faceted nature of being a man, which involves softness and vulnerability as well as strength and leadership, if she wants to raise an emotionally mature son.

2. Let go of personal experience: Mothers must be aware of their personal experience with men and the situations they have faced during their lifetime.

3. Focus on humanisation, not emasculation: Mothers must strike a balance between the two to promote emotional intelligence and traditional male traits.

Ms de Beyer said parents - mothers in particular - must be clear in their own definitions of masculinity.

She believes mums must understand the complex and multi-faceted nature of being a man, which involves softness and vulnerability as well as strength and leadership, if they want to raise a son who is empathetic and emotionally mature.

'There are many ways to be a man, and we need to welcome all of them back,' the holistic parenting expert said.

Ms de Beyer insists mothers must be aware of their personal experience with men and the situations they have faced during their lifetime.

They should reflect on these to work through difficult emotions they may have faced in relation to domination, broken relationships and poor communication so they can teach their sons to be well-rounded individuals.

'Mums must heal their own wounds around masculinity so they don't bring that into their relationship with their sons,' Ms de Beyer added.

She said mothers with 'masculine wounds' can often overreact to displays of masculinity - such as aggression, territoriality and arrogance common in adolescence - in a bid to protect themselves from 'toxic masculinity'.

But Ms de Beyer admitted there is a 'fine balance' between emasculating boys and humanising them that is not always easy to strike.

'We need to make room for their emotional lives to let their inner voices shine through so they can reach their full potential,' she said.

Raising girls with healthy masculinity

Ms de Beyer believes parents must be clear with language and communication in order to encourage a healthy dose of masculinity in their daughters.

She recommends using phrases like 'do things that make you feel proud of yourself' and 'I love how independent you've become' to show young girls it is good for them to be strong and stand on their own two feet - traits historically applauded in boys.

Other statements that reinforce positive masculinity for girls include 'it's brave to do that' and 'you are behaving very honourably'.

Ms de Beyer believes use of this language will encourage girls to embrace their masculine side while they develop the classic - and equally important - feminine characteristics of collaboration, kindness, care and compassion.

She said it's vital to create a 'blend of the two'. 'Don't stop either, with boys or with girls,' she added.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


No comments: