# Children, Good, and Evil.



## PeacePassion (Jun 9, 2009)

Was just thinking about the innocence of children, both in the way we usually think of innocence as a sort of divine good, but also how children can be just as innocently evil. Which of course makes me think of the work of Yoshitomo Nara:



















who really plays with these themes in his work. 

I guess it just makes me really curious how we develop as people. Anyone know anything about child development psychology? How do children develop values and ethics? 

I remember always telling myself, as a child, not to lie to kids, because they just _know_. Like, it was really important to me that I would remember that when I was an adult. (I remembered, yay!) That's the extent I could explain it to myself then, but it seems true to me now. Even if they can't necessarily verbalize certain concepts or experiences, it seems like they know. Or do they? To what extent are children innocent at all?

What does genetics have to do with it? Socialization? What about an individual soul, is it possible we come into this world with a particular disposition? Whatever would lead us to the life experiences we need to learn and grow, as souls? It just doesn't seem like nature and nurture cover all the bases, though I'd like to understand what we know sociologically and scientifically about these things. 

THX.


----------



## Blueguardian (Aug 22, 2009)

Hm. I actually took a few classes that dealt with child development. I am not comfortable giving absolute information though... mostly because I suck at remembering details correctly. 
Most of a child's mindset is derived from the parents, siblings, or other caregivers. They begin to pick up on things before they can even speak. There are genetic influences too however. Temperaments of the child such as withdrawn, abusive, etc. are not completely dependent on environmental factors. These temperaments however are usually grown out of as the child becomes more independent. 
As for the individual soul. I believe in it and believe it has a strong effect on us. I grew up in a very different environment from what my personality would suggest. Looking back, I am surprised I didn't end up having more ESFJ tendencies. My morals were taught by my parents and religion. I then modified them based on my observations and how things made me feel.
I would also like to not in my case I modeled myself after images of "Knights in Shining Armor" when growing up. I have been extremely interested in that area since prior to 2nd grade, and never have really stopped. I believe this fantasy acted as a sort of "hero" that I looked up too and tried to be like. I would assume that means a child's hero holds a special influence on them as they will try to mimic them. Old habits die hard so they say, so habits formed as children should be especially hard to break.

Okay all that was a bit random sorry. Hope there was something in there that satisfied someone! :blushed:


----------



## Selene (Aug 2, 2009)

I've been kind of interested in learning more about attachment theory:

Attachment Theory - An Overview of Attachment Theory

The basic idea is kind of simple: our earliest experiences with our caregivers create attachment styles, and these tend to persist through adulthood and affect how we form friendships/relationships in general.

It's definitely not the whole story, but I think it's interesting at least.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

My belief about the spiritual innocence of children is that they are exempt from moral responsibility until the conscience is first activated, when they have some concept of both empathy and causality. The initial activation of the conscience is the first taste of the knowledge of good and evil. Until then, children are as amoral as animals and are therefore spiritually innocent even at their most brutal. This is, of course, based on the definition of sin that describes it as a conscious choice rather than an inherent condition. I believe the predisposition is an inherent condition, but sin itself is deliberate, a negative side-effect of our free will. Free will is a necessary condition for the existence of authentic love, which gives our existence meaning.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

Selene said:


> I've been kind of interested in learning more about attachment theory:
> 
> Attachment Theory - An Overview of Attachment Theory
> 
> ...


Interesting theory

The Buddha taught that Attachments are often imprisoning and result in much suffering. Attachments to people, places, feelings, self ect ect

As for kids.....I often feel sad when I see children being exposed and molded to unnatural circumstances.

We are Apes that are meant to be in natural circumstances in Nature. The blind acceptance of civilization being the correct circumstances for life forces many children to suffer as they are molded independent of Type or DNA programming.

I reckon much of the evil witnessed in children is influenced by the unnatural simulations, rules and temptations of life in the Zoo

To truly understand a child and the essence of children they would have to be observed in their natural hunting/gathering worlds of pre civilization days

They are then more likely to be judged as simply part of their environment, reacting as such.....no good or evil.....simply being

What other animal's children is judged as good or evil.....a bit odd it is

( BTW......Hyenas pups are fucking evil...... as are all Hyenas......I hate Hyenas)


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

snail said:


> My belief about the spiritual innocence of children is that they are exempt from moral responsibility until the conscience is first activated, when they have some concept of both empathy and causality. The initial activation of the conscience is the first taste of the knowledge of good and evil. Until then, children are as amoral as animals and are therefore spiritually innocent even at their most brutal. This is, of course, based on the definition of sin that describes it as a conscious choice rather than an inherent condition. I believe the predisposition is an inherent condition, but sin itself is deliberate, a negative side-effect of our free will. Free will is a necessary condition for the existence of authentic love, which gives our existence meaning.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Silly sinners

What is a sin?

If our natural instincts overcome us in unnatural circumstances, does this make an animal of our breed a sinner?

If so, who gives a shit?

But then again, the Zoo has rules for good reason....._must follow rules_......or punish the strawman and the label of sinner, the natural man


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I may have different views on the meaning of evil, but agree strongly that societal influences can distort our development in ways that are non-beneficial and unnatural. Not all rules are good for us.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PeacePassion (Jun 9, 2009)

snail said:


> My belief about the spiritual innocence of children is that they are exempt from moral responsibility until the conscience is first activated, when they have some concept of both empathy and causality. The initial activation of the conscience is the first taste of the knowledge of good and evil. Until then, children are as amoral as animals and are therefore spiritually innocent even at their most brutal. This is, of course, based on the definition of sin that describes it as a conscious choice rather than an inherent condition. I believe the predisposition is an inherent condition, but sin itself is deliberate, a negative side-effect of our free will. Free will is a necessary condition for the existence of authentic love, which gives our existence meaning.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is very much along the lines of what i was thinking, I guess I am wondering then at what point is there a choice? I'm sure it's a longer, developmental process than any given point in time, but still. It's very curious. I'm living with my nephew now, and he both amazes and disturbs me any given day(!). He's only 3.5, but he totally fascinates me.


----------



## PeacePassion (Jun 9, 2009)

ape said:


> ( BTW......Hyenas pups are fucking evil...... as are all Hyenas......I hate Hyenas)


lol i ran into a possum nest once, at night, and the little baby possums had glowing red eyes and bared they're pointy teeth and hissed at me, they seemed totally evil. the only baby anything i ever thought was ugly.


----------



## Selene (Aug 2, 2009)

ape said:


> Interesting theory
> 
> The Buddha taught that Attachments are often imprisoning and result in much suffering. Attachments to people, places, feelings, self ect ect


I see where you're coming from, but I reckon that this kind of attachment is actually a good thing to start with. People who don't form secure attachments become anxious, distrustful, and have difficulty forming relationships with all people, at least according to this theory. Which means everything the Buddha taught about metta, karuna, mudita, etc. goes out the window...as well as everything about seeing oneself as interdependent and enmeshed in a web of change and dependent origination.



ape said:


> As for kids.....I often feel sad when I see children being exposed and molded to unnatural circumstances.
> 
> We are Apes that are meant to be in natural circumstances in Nature. The blind acceptance of civilization being the correct circumstances for life forces many children to suffer as they are molded independent of Type or DNA programming.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I'm not very clear on where I stand about the role I want morals/society to play. On the one hand, I see them preventing a lot of suffering, and directing people towards pro-social attitudes. On the other hand, I see them causing people to deny themselves and their true thoughts/feelings/intentions.

Sometimes I hold strong moral views on good and bad and expect other people to follow them. Other times, I'm of the opinion, "People are what they are...I'll stop them from doing certain things, but only because I want to...not because I'm doing what's 'right'." When I think about it rationally, I lean towards the latter. Reading Beyond Good and Evil kind of tore apart a lot of my moral views.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

ape said:


> Silly sinners
> What is a sin?


A sin is a transgression against religious or moral law.



ape said:


> If our natural instincts overcome us in unnatural circumstances, does this make an animal of our breed a sinner?


"An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason." - C.S. Lewis



ape said:


> If so, who gives a shit?


Apparently, not you. But plenty of others are likely to "give a shit" if you steal something or murder someone.



ape said:


> But then again, the Zoo has rules for good reason....._must follow rules_......or punish the strawman and the label of sinner, the natural man


Beasts and men may have some similarities, but such an analogy presupposes a more significant relationship than actually exists.


----------



## Selene (Aug 2, 2009)

ape said:


> Silly sinners
> 
> What is a sin?
> 
> ...


I have a few different takes on why people do "good":

1. People do good to avoid being punished by the zookeepers.
-Tagline: "What is thy bidding, my master?"

2. People do good even when the zookeepers are not around, because they've internalized the rules of the Zoo.
Tagline: "The superego is strong with this one!"

3. People do good even if there's no Zoo, just because they naturally want to.
Tagline: "A Jedi's strength flows from the force."


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

> Selene;136576]I see where you're coming from, but I reckon that this kind of attachment is actually a good thing to start with. People who don't form secure attachments become anxious, distrustful, and have difficulty forming relationships with all people, at least according to this theory. Which means everything the Buddha taught about metta, karuna, mudita, etc. goes out the window...as well as everything about seeing oneself as interdependent and enmeshed in a web of change and dependent origination.


Good points. To be attached and nurtured as a child is essential.

I think the Buddha was teaching coping methods for life in the Zoo. Potentially, all would be flawed in the Zoo as the circumstance of life in the Zoo are unnatural so there is potential for unnatural suffering if one is Attached, which is a potential source of entrapment and suffering for many people.

His advice and methods would probably be most effective for certain Types, more so than others


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

> =Azrael;136577]A sin is a transgression against religious or moral law.


Not moral law....religious law, after all, they invented the word and concept. Controlling the message and the medium.

How long have these Johny come lately religiouns been on Earth?

How long has human kind been on Earth.

Odd we should be getting the rule book so late in the game


> "An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason." - C.S. Lewsi


Yes it is. Cause and effect

1 + 1 = 2

Rational patterns recognized and used as reference



> Apparently, not you. But plenty of others are likely to "give a shit" if you steal something or murder someone.


I meant give a shit in rational context. The laws and misdemeanors are ever changing depending on moment in history and geography ( Zoo wise)

The acts that are a cause for concern and should be given a shit about, do not need to be labeled as sins.....natural wrong doings are self evident.....no need for the Vatican and others to tell us they are wrong (sinful)



> Beasts and men may have some similarities, but such an analogy presupposes a more significant relationship than actually exists.


Similarities?

For the two million years hence we split from the other Apes and in the one million years since we began making tools......in our natural habitat.....Nature.....on Mother Earth......did we have" similarities "with the" Beast" or were we "Beast" as well?


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

Selene said:


> I have a few different takes on why people do "good":
> 
> 1. People do good to avoid being punished by the zookeepers.
> -Tagline: "What is thy bidding, my master?"
> ...


People do "good" because they are naturally empathetic

Watch a group of baby's.....when one begins to cry the others immediately become upset or concerned.

We are a social animal, it is in our nature to care about and for those in our tribe

As for the Zoo Keeper's punishment and rewards creating good.....interesting

I think for many that have fine tuned too much to the Zoo and have separated from their natural selves, the Zoo keeper does play a big part in their moral framework. 

Cults work in a very similar style, with cult members requiring cult leadership to avail them of right and wrong and rewarding accordingly.

Zoodification is a bitch


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

ape said:


> Not moral law....religious law, after all, they invented the word and concept. Controlling the message and the medium.


That was the dictionary definition of the term, which included "moral." To evaluate it based on its origin is a logical error, known as the "genetic fallacy."



ape said:


> Yes it is. Cause and effect
> 
> 1 + 1 = 2
> 
> Rational patterns recognized and used as reference


A human's ability to reason and ponder transcends the pattern of causality, which is indicative that we are not ruled by it in the same way other natural entities may be. Though various conditions may influence a human's decisions, they do not control them and do not excuse them of accountability.

Furthermore, subjecting every human to the movements of causality naturally leads to devaluing ethics, justice, and even life. This is not only illogical, but very unhealthy.




ape said:


> I meant give a shit in rational context. The laws and misdemeanors are ever changing depending on moment in history and geography ( Zoo wise)
> 
> The acts that are a cause for concern and should be given a shit about, do not need to be labeled as sins.....natural wrong doings are self evident.....no need for the Vatican and others to tell us they are wrong (sinful)


No one said anything about the Vatican (or anything religion-oriented, for that matter.)

Ambiguous topics such as masturbation, homosexuality, etc. which cannot as easily be_ rationally_ deemed "sinful" except by religious law are NOT on the table right now.

Ugh, moral relativism drives me crazy.



ape said:


> Similarities?
> 
> For the two million years hence we split from the other Apes and in the one million years since we began making tools......in our natural habitat.....Nature.....on Mother Earth......did we have" similarities "with the" Beast" or were we "Beast" as well?


Making references to a faulty theory (if it can be called such), namely universal common descent, won't really drive the discussion forward. If you believe it, that's fine with me. But I have some trouble with it, so let's leave it out of the discussion.


----------



## PeacePassion (Jun 9, 2009)

ape said:


> natural wrong doings are self evident.....


 this is part of what interests me, in the way that children can be innocently cruel, of course there's a line where it's not so innocent anymore, but it doesn't appear to be self evident at all. 

EDIT: ah, nevermind, i missed your next line: 



> Watch a group of baby's.....when one begins to cry the others immediately become upset or concerned.


 I guess i've never watched a group of babies. perhaps part of the development process is to retain that inherent empathy even as becoming strong to the world... don't know how to put it better than that. but it seems that empathy needs to be nurtured at least. 



Azrael said:


> A human's ability to reason and ponder transcends the pattern of causality, which is indicative that we are not ruled by it in the same way other natural entities may be. Though various conditions may influence a human's decisions, they do not control them and do not excuse them of accountability.
> 
> Furthermore, subjecting every human to the movements of causality naturally leads to devaluing ethics, justice, and even life. This is not only illogical, but very unhealthy.


very important points i think! so is that what children learn, to reason, to ponder, to make choices? do children learn to be empathetic, or is that natural? it doesn't seem natural, actually. maybe to some more than others, idk. (or, perhaps it needs to be nurtured. that would make sense to me). 



Blueguardian said:


> As for the individual soul. I believe in it and believe it has a strong effect on us. I grew up in a very different environment from what my personality would suggest. Looking back, I am surprised I didn't end up having more ESFJ tendencies. My morals were taught by my parents and religion. I then modified them based on my observations and how things made me feel.


interesting, it seems that was very much my experience as well. even though my family wasn't very religious, i sought it out i suppose to some extent. and i do think the individual soul is a large factor as well. thanks for sharing. 



Blueguardian said:


> I would also like to not in my case I modeled myself after images of "Knights in Shining Armor" when growing up. I have been extremely interested in that area since prior to 2nd grade, and never have really stopped. I believe this fantasy acted as a sort of "hero" that I looked up too and tried to be like. I would assume that means a child's hero holds a special influence on them as they will try to mimic them. Old habits die hard so they say, so habits formed as children should be especially hard to break.


I've recently come across the idea of the 'heroic imagination' and it does seem to be very important. i came across it reading about the so called lucifer effect, the studies of the infamous Stanford prison experiment:

http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/greatergood.pdf



Selene said:


> I've been kind of interested in learning more about attachment theory:
> 
> Attachment Theory - An Overview of Attachment Theory
> 
> ...


thanks, i'll definitely read it, though i haven't yet!


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Peace&Quiet said:


> very important points i think! so is that what children learn, to reason, to ponder, to make choices? do children learn to be empathetic, or is that natural? it doesn't seem natural, actually. maybe to some more than others, idk. (or, perhaps it needs to be nurtured. that would make sense to me).


It is not "innate" per se, but it is indeed natural! roud:

Essentially, as a human baby develops amongst other people, his rapidly increasing intelligence begins to build foundations of logic and empathy. Empathy is initially established and is matured by a person recognizing patterns of behavior that are similar to his/her own, and then connecting them to the corresponding emotional/mental states. 

A child begins showing signs of actual empathy at around the age of 2.

The reason very young babies cry with their peers has nothing to do with empathy; it is actually selfishly motivated. They just don't like the noise! :crazy:
They cannot be held accountable at such a young age though, because they are completely ignorant of those around them. For all they know, they ARE the only people in the world!


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

> =Azrael;136674]That was the dictionary definition of the term, which included "moral." To evaluate it based on its origin is a logical error, known as the "genetic fallacy."


It is not a genetic fallacy to point out the origins of the word sin as being religious, as it's current context and meaning remain unchanged. I made reference to current use of the term and the manipulative practices that follow

I think you are using the term, "genetic fallacy.", out of context and inappropriately 




> A human's ability to reason and ponder transcends the pattern of causality, which is indicative that we are not ruled by it in the same way other natural entities may be. Though various conditions may influence a human's decisions, they do not control them and do not excuse them of accountability.


No body was using them to excuse accountability but i was using them a "reference" in trying to understand and explain human behavior patterns


> Furthermore, subjecting every human to the movements of causality naturally leads to devaluing ethics, justice, and even life. This is not only illogical, but very unhealthy.


Who is "subjecting every human to the movements of causality"?

For me to illuminate a source of cause in a n attempt to understand underlying forces that effect civilized human behaviour is in no way unhealthy or unnatural..... you are using a modified genetic fallacy to make your point


> No one said anything about the Vatican (or anything religion-oriented, for that matter.


)

Actually I used it, so as to give a source of sin dogma



> Ambiguous topics such as masturbation, homosexuality, etc. which cannot as easily be_ rationally_ deemed "sinful" except by religious law are NOT on the table right now.
> 
> Ugh, moral relativism drives me crazy.


What part of self evident did you not understand?

I was referring to "universal moral truths"

Again, you should really understand the big words you are tossing around in your post before using them



> Making references to a faulty theory (if it can be called such), namely universal common descent, won't really drive the discussion forward. If you believe it, that's fine with me. But I have some trouble with it, so let's leave it out of the discussion.


The evidence supporting this "faulty theory" is the same standard of evidence accepted in capital murder cases throughout the Western World. I guess we will toss out evidence evaluation techniques like carbon dating and scientifically accepted efforts in Archeology and Anthropology in pursuing this discussion because you have "some trouble with it"

Seems fair and rational

BTW do you have a alternative theory to evolution that will drive the discussion forward?

If so, please share


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

ape said:


> It is not a genetic fallacy to point out the origins of the word sin as being religious, as it's current context and meaning remain unchanged.


Again, I was using the dictionary definition which includes "moral." Many non-religious people still use the word "sin" to describe morally reprehensible acts.



ape said:


> I made reference to current use of the term and the manipulative practices that follow. I think you are using the term, "genetic fallacy.", out of context and inappropriately.


If your intent was to discuss the term SOLELY in religious context, then I apologize for bringing up this fallacy. But your original use of the term appeared generalized which is why I brought it up.



ape said:


> No body was using them to excuse accountability but i was using them a "reference" in trying to understand and explain human behavior patterns


When I quoted Lewis regarding whether an act was justifiable if it provided cause, you said a resounding "YES." Perhaps you misunderstood the quote. If so, then I have no concerns with your stance on accountability and we can drop that one.



ape said:


> Who is "subjecting every human to the movements of causality"?


Again, you appear to do this when you compare choices to "1 +1 = 2." 



ape said:


> For me to illuminate a source of cause in a n attempt to understand underlying forces that effect civilized human behaviour is in no way unhealthy or unnatural..... you are using a modified genetic fallacy to make your point


Sorry, but if you're claiming that I was straying off your original intended argument, that would actually be a fallacy of irrelevance called "missing the point." Regardless, I don't see how I'm guilty of this. I have no idea how you figured "genetic fallacy" into my argument...



ape said:


> What part of self evident did you not understand?
> I was referring to "universal moral truths"


"Self-evident" is a very ambiguous term. For someone who seems to be arguing FOR moral relativism, I'm surprised that you make reference to "universal moral truths." Perhaps we think more alike than I thought.



ape said:


> Again, you should really understand the big words you are tossing around in your post before using them.


I understand them well. Insulting my intelligence is not necessary in a healthy debate. Please relax.



ape said:


> The evidence supporting this "faulty theory" is the same standard of evidence accepted in capital murder cases throughout the Western World. I guess we will toss out evidence evaluation techniques like carbon dating and scientifically accepted efforts in Archeology and Anthropology in pursuing this discussion because you have "some trouble with it"


It has some decent evidence, but it also has substantial counter-evidence, such as the concept of 'irreducible complexity' and the like. This is why I'm agnostic on the subject.



ape said:


> BTW do you have a alternative theory to evolution that will drive the discussion forward?
> If so, please share


Honestly, I'm not sure how our beliefs on how the world came to be are entirely relevant to a discussion on morality. I guess if you believe man can be reduced to an intelligent animal, that can greatly influence your understanding of the subject.

I, for one, think that we humans are far more...


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

> Essentially, as a human baby develops amongst other people, his rapidly increasing intelligence begins to build foundations of logic and empathy.
> 
> Empathy is initially established and is matured by a person recognizing patterns of behavior that are similar to his/her own, and then connecting them to the corresponding emotional/mental states.


To say that the foundation of empathy is built on "increasing intelligence" in an infant is just silly. 

I was a security guard on the pediatrics wing of a hospital a few times. I would have plenty of time on my hands and so chatted up the nurses. I had read Frans Dewaal's "Our Inner Ape" in which he premised that when a day old baby cries in the company of other new born children, a chain reaction occurs and that he says is the earliest indication of empathy.

I quizzed the nurses up on the crying habits of babys on their wards when in a group. I presented De waal's premise to them and the resulting discussions resulted in some interesting observations. We continued the discussions on another visit and they had observed certain babys that seemed to have more sensitive feeling perception compared with others . They would react soonest and the most often when other babys were in distress. Some babys reacted consistently slower. I would assume the differences being perception filters innate in the child, the EFP's probably the first to develop and farthest ahead on the empathy curve

The point is, for you to think there is a void of empathy in children and somehow their intelligence developes and fills this void with empathy, independent of genetic predisposition, defies a logical construct.



> A child begins showing signs of actual empathy at around the age of 2.


Observable empathy.....so what is your point?

Mine is that empathy is innate



> The reason very young babies cry with their peers has nothing to do with empathy; it is actually selfishly motivated. They just don't like the noise! :crazy:


That is just silly


> They cannot be held accountable at such a young age though, because they are completely ignorant of those around them. For all they know, they ARE the only people in the world!


Obviously a mother's caress and soothing words mean nothing to them and proud grandfathers gentle murmurings and scent would also mean nothing

Because for all they know, they are the only people in the world!


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

> Honestly, I'm not sure how our beliefs on how the world came to be are entirely relevant to a discussion on morality. I guess if you believe man can be reduced to an intelligent animal, that can greatly influence your understanding of the subject.
> 
> I, for one, think that we humans are far more...


Sorry for getting the elbows up.....instinct

Great to have such a chat with someone so well trained in such discussions, as I am not. Much to learn.

My paradigm and constructs were developed after more than 15 years in the bush and on and in the ocean, living life very much like pre civilized man.

My opinions and arguments reflect such

I use science when possible to connect the dots between the differing constructs I have developed along the way until I feel my system of constructs is aligned with the truth of the moment and our circumstances

And as for my original point......it is inaccurate and unfair to judge the goodness or evilness of our children unless it is done in their natural habitat and in natural circumstances. The OP should have specified in which environment we will make judgment, our current unnatural circumstances or our natural circumstances

I visualize the system of constructs of the mind to look something like this.....


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

ape said:


> To say that the foundation of empathy is built on "increasing intelligence" in an infant is just silly.


Not really.  Let me try to explain myself better:
The moment a child exits the womb, he is exposed to a myriad of new facets of sensory data. At first, his/her experiences make virtually no sense at all. (S)he cannot understand what (s)he is seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, etc. Through experience, his/her brain begins to form mental associations and patterns to sort out the processed information. These associations are (what I would classify as) "increasing intelligence."

These associations branch out to observing other individuals. As the child observes behavior in another person, (s)he compares them to his/her own and associates them with a mental state. This is empathy. This may come earlier than the age of 2 for some people, or later...or never (sociopaths lol). I was making a generalization based upon a study I read. roud:



ape said:


> I was a security guard on the pediatrics wing of a hospital a few times. I would have plenty of time on my hands and so chatted up the nurses. I had read Frans Dewaal's "Our Inner Ape" in which he premised that when a day old baby cries in the company of other new born children, a chain reaction occurs and that he says is the earliest indication of empathy.
> 
> I quizzed the nurses up on the crying habits of babys on their wards when in a group. I presented De waal's premise to them and the resulting discussions resulted in some interesting observations. We continued the discussions on another visit and they had observed certain babys that seemed to have more sensitive feeling perception compared with others . They would react soonest and the most often when other babys were in distress. Some babys reacted consistently slower. I would assume the differences being perception filters innate in the child, the EFP's probably the first to develop and farthest ahead on the empathy curve


Hmm, interesting experiences and reading there. I would agree that a _mental capacity_ for empathy is more significant in some children, but I still would argue that empathy itself is learned.



ape said:


> The point is, for you to think there is a void of empathy in children and somehow their intelligence developes and fills this void with empathy, independent of genetic predisposition, defies a logical construct.


I don't understand how this defies any logical construct. 



ape said:


> Observable empathy.....so what is your point?
> Mine is that empathy is innate


Fair enough. Mine is that empathy is learned. :tongue:



ape said:


> That is just silly
> Obviously a mother's caress and soothing words mean nothing to them and proud grandfathers gentle murmurings and scent would also mean nothing
> Because for all they know, they are the only people in the world!


Sorry, you misinterpreted my meaning. These actions you mention are *exactly* what I believe are what drive children to learn empathy. As they begin to relate to those around them, they value these humans less as caregivers and more as people. :happy:

But early on, a child would find it difficult to understand the intrinsic value in his mother's life, but solely the value in what his mother can DO for HIM.



ape said:


> Sorry for getting the elbows up.....instinct
> Great to have such a chat with someone so well trained in such discussions, as I am not. Much to learn.


Hey, no problem bro. It's great to have a discussion with someone as experienced as you! I have so much to learn myself, and I look forward to it. roud:



ape said:


> And as for my original point......it is inaccurate and unfair to judge the goodness or evilness of our children unless it is done in their natural habitat and in natural circumstances. The OP should have specified in which environment we will make judgment, our current unnatural circumstances or our natural circumstances


Well, just to clarify (because I've had this come up in a few conversations on the subject), when I say "evil," I do NOT mean "*malevolent*."

I'm using it in it's "lightest" form, if you will. Many (or most, even) consider it a deep, satanic, sadistic immorality that is deliberate and willful. I'm referring to something that is "not good," or "the absence of good."

I believe young children are exempt from "fairness" or "judgment" because of their ignorance. So, understand I'm not condemning them or anything like that. :blushed:



ape said:


> I visualize the system of constructs of the mind to look something like this.....


Nice pic! I would say we are quite similar on how we see the mind. :wink:


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

> Not really.  Let me try to explain myself better:
> The moment a child exits the womb, he is exposed to a myriad of new facets of sensory data. At first, his/her experiences make virtually no sense at all. (S)he cannot understand what (s)he is seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, etc. Through experience, his/her brain begins to form mental associations and patterns to sort out the processed information. These associations are (what I would classify as) "increasing intelligence."
> 
> These associations branch out to observing other individuals. As the child observes behavior in another person, (s)he compares them to his/her own and associates them with a mental state. This is empathy. This may come earlier than the age of 2 for some people, or later...or never (sociopaths lol). I was making a generalization based upon a study I read. roud:


_
*Empathy*, which literally translates as 'in feeling', is the capability to share and understand another's emotions and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes_". 

Wiki

You are providing a thinker's incorrect perception of empathy. 

Empathy is the behavior of _feeling_ what others feel. 

Actually what you describe would fit a psychopaths development as a child. They would use rational observation in place of shared feelings so as to understand and relate to those around them.

Not saying you are....but the author of the paper has some explaining to do


----------



## Kokos (Dec 28, 2008)

I remember that episode when i was 6 or 7, one day i stole the "pogs" collection of another kid. It did a scandal in the class, the teacher searched all the bags and the desks, but i anticipated it and i managed to hide it outside of the school. So they concluded it must have been some other kids who sneaked into the classroom. 

At the end of the day i've went to my hideout and took them with me at home.

And i remember that i first i was very proud of my ruse in the thrill of action, just that feeling of having confused everyone and getting out with it; and obviously i was also very happy to have +150 more pogs. The guy was also a bit dumb to not have kept an eye on them when he knew his collection was worth fort knox for the other kids at this time.

But in the evening, i suddenly i asked myself "what if it was me ?".
I don't know from where that was coming from, it wasn't any predicted moral or anything like that; but since then, i couldn't avoid feeling bad for that poor guy who lost his collection of pogs and who will be pissed off about himself to not have kept an eye on them.

So the next day, i managed to put them discretely in his desk. During the day when he searched the desk he eventually found them. It was a great mystery, nobody never knew it was me who took them. But it learned me to not always trust my honesty. :happy:



"what if it was me" is the only moral i ever had, i did some serious bad stuff, and i was from far the most crazy kid of my band of friend, being the brain to do those stuff. I've endangered myself, but i never did something dangerous for another person or destroyed something valuable for someone. It was just all for the thrill of adrenaline.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

That reminds me of the first time my conscience was activated, only in my case, I intellectually rationalized it, considered myself justified, and it was only an emotional response that told me I was bad. One of my cousins had a little pin in the shape of a cat with a red plastic jewel in the center. She told me that I could have it if I beat her sister in a race. She didn't think I was going to win when she made the deal, and changed her mind afterward. I decided it was rightfully mine, since she made a deal, so I stole the pin when she wasn't watching. I pinned it to my favorite doll and held the doll with the pin as I fell asleep that night. When I woke up the next morning, the guilt was so terrible that I felt ill from it. I cried, told the nearest adult to drive me back so I could return the pin immediately. After that, every time I was ever intentionally selfish or unloving, the feeling came back, but never with the same intensity. I must have been about four or five at most.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PeacePassion (Jun 9, 2009)

ape said:


> _
> *Empathy*, which literally translates as 'in feeling', is the capability to share and understand another's emotions and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes_".
> 
> Wiki
> ...


this is part of what interests me too, as the two examples above, and in my own experience, i remember a rush of empathetic feeling after intellectually realizing i did something wrong. so it seems like there's a vital connection that needs to be made or developed there, between the intellect and true empathy, truly feeling another's feelings.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

ape said:


> _
> *Empathy*, which literally translates as 'in feeling', is the capability to share and understand another's emotions and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes_".
> 
> Wiki
> ...


My understanding is that feelings come from two things:
1. Sensory perception
2. Thought, both conscious and unconscious.

I'm not arguing that a child has to intellectualize a situation and decide whether it is logically moral or immoral. I'm saying that they're building a foundation of subconscious associations which cause an emotional response. This is why no one remembers when they were a baby: subconscious structures are built as a foundation for conscious thought and memory.


----------

