Psychology NOT religion

[QuarianRex]

Shang:

First of all don't worry about potential offense and such. Just say what you must and the rest can be sorted out later. Second, I myself am a Psych major and nothing I have said contradicts what I have learned.

I'll try to address your concerns as best as I can but please try not to turn this into a semantic argument. When you asked whether we believed that humans were xenophobic or not the implied definition of xenophobia is considerably broader than the clinical definition. If it were otherwise the answer would have to be 'no' since the entirety of the human race does not meet the criteria of being clinically xenophobic.

Also note that my original post was a casual reply on a game forum, not a thesis defense, so a certain amount inacuracy was intended in my statement both for the sake of brevity and so that I didn't bore anyone (or myself) with psychobabble.

As far considering other races to be 'human' I was not refering to hominids. I was refering to other races of man that still currently exist (ie. blacks, whites, asians, indians, natives, aborigines, etc., and countless subGroups within each). I meant that even as recently as a century ago it was publicly acceptable to view people of other other subdivisions of man (not hominids) as something other than human. As far as the church being responsible for this (I assume that you are reffering to catholicism specifically and christianity in general) I can't disagree with you more. The tendancy to view people of other tribes/clans/city-states/countries/etc. as sub-human is found cross-culturally throughout history, pre- and post-christianity. Do you want proof other than the historical record? take a look at a group of young kids and see how they treat the ones that are different. They aren't taught to tease the fat kid (or whatever) they just do.

When I said that “Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation…” I was not saying that xenophobia was a physical thing. I was instead refering to the collection of behaviours and attitudes that we attribute to those we would label as 'xenophobic'(ie. unprompted aggression and hatred of those 'different' than themselves based solely on their inherent qualities rather than due to their behaviour, or something like that). As far as most animals being xenophobic, there's evidence to suggest that they are. Animals try to automatically drive of (aka. kill) any competitors for their ecoloical niche. An example would be a rat. A rat, when first encountering a mouse, will bite the mouse on the back of the neck and shake till the it snaps. This is an instinctive behaviour that occurs even in rats that have never been exposed to mice before. The key here is that the xenophobic reaction (usually) only occurs when there is a conflict between species over a spot on the food chain (or something similar) and so threatens their survival. What I said had nothing to do with altruism theory and I am not sure what point you were trying to make.

When I said that we had the capacity to over-ride instinct I did not mean that we were tame as a species. I said that we could inhibit our instincts "especially... when the motivating force behind the instinct has been tamed". I meant that we have tamed the immediate threat to our survival. When you claim that we are still in a daily fight for survival I have to say thee nay. The consideration of death rerely enters our lives. Mothers and children are both expected to live through child-birth, we expect to be able to get to work/get food without having to defend our lives, etc. Most of the motivating force behind going to work is not for survival (that is conceptually, if not realistically, a given) but instead to put an extra car in the driveway or to get a big screen tv. That motivation has little to do with survival and more to do with the need to achieve.

When loooking at equality you must recognize how far western civilization (and the world at large) has come. Just a century ago (less in some places) racial slurs and racism in general was accepted and even encouraged. Thanks to WWII (specifically Hitler, even psychos can serve a purpose) that changed and there has since been a worldwide push to view humanity as one. This is only possible because we no longer need to compete with each other to meet the basic elements of survival. When I refered to animal rights activists, vegans, and so on I meant that if you were hunting for your hungry clan and some madman jumped out and started yelling that cows have feelings too you would probably club the man over the head to end his misery and then take the cow back to your hungry family. We can choose divergent views only when we don't have to ocus on more pressing matters.

When I say "species wide benevolence" I am refering to the current state of tollerance that humans are showing in the late 20th century/early 21st C not to some kind of instinct. As far as our bloodthirsty/benevolence capability I don't see it as a problem. It all depends on context. If we have a dog that we love we tend to think of it as a member of the family. If that dog tries to take a bite out of a kid we take said dog out back and do him like old yeller. I see no problem with that. It is all part of being a complex social organism.

When I said that we have been evolving for 2 billion years I meant it. From little squishy things in the mud to bipedal monkeys to us. I was not implying that our genes were guiding us or any such thing like that, I meant that 2 billion years of evolution fashioned a creature capable of rising to the top of the food chain without using toth or claw. Instead we had to use ingenuity, aggression and tennacity, more than any other creature before us.