Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Moral Outrage, Parenting, Progress

Why Do We Judge Parents For Putting Kids At Perceived — But Unreal — Risk? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR:

Those of us that grew up in era of Neanderthal parenting with spankings, no bicycle helmets, no seat belts even existing in cars, no child car seats,  free range kids, federally unapproved toys, etc probably have a bit different reaction to this. Oh, but our parents DID love us, we know because they dutifully made us wait an hour after eating before swimming so we didn't get "cramps".  That was "settled science" in those days.

We have all witnessed, or maybe even felt "moral outrage" at parents that let their kids run around unsupervised, failed to use a car seat, or gave a kid a swat -- these days we even have LAWS to FORCE people to follow the "modern ideals of parenting". Why, giving a kid a swat is CHILD ABUSE!

I always love how some animal exhibiting homosexual behavior is "proof" that it is "natural" and therefore good -- but watching a mother cat or dog deal with pups of kittens gives no clue as to the "naturalness" of giving them a swat!

The article authors seem to be mystified that just as everyone believes in something, everyone is going to judge something. When I was growing up, we actually had "real morals" -- like the money the rich guy down the street has isn't yours to take even if you can get the government to do it, don't sleep around, don't take drugs, don't gamble, etc, etc. We gave up all those old morals -- now theft by government is a virtue, sex with anything or anyone is wonderful, and the government is in charge of running the numbers (lottery), but has outsourced craps, slots, etc to the Indians. These days in more states every year, one can light up a joint, sit back and wait for prostitution and heroin to be legal -- heck, they may even force the rich guy down the street to buy them for you!

Either God or randomness gave us a moral compass, and it WILL get used. We are moral beings. For the previous thousands of years, those morals were "attached" to things that were considered by those old "non-progressive fools" to either actually be "good or bad", or were somehow "adaptive" if you think it is all an "accident". BUT we are MUCH smarter now, so we have a moral compass that has no "true north" to point at -- no matter, it works just fine anyway, but it confuses the NPR and psychologist folks.

The more surprising result was that perceptions of risk followed precisely the same pattern. Although the details of the cases were otherwise the same — that is, the age of the child, the duration and location of the unattended period, and so on — participants thought children were in significantly greater danger when the parent left to meet a lover than when the child was left alone unintentionally. The ratings for the other cases, once again, fell in between. In other words, participants' factual judgments of how much danger the child was in while the parent was away varied according to the extent of their moral outrage concerning the parent's reason for leaving.
Strangely (from the POV of brilliant progressives), people have a "moral sense", Now it may seem completely insane to apply it to things that only arrived in the last 50 years like seat belts, car seats, Pokemon games, bike helmets, etc -- but apply it we do, and SHOCKINGLY, we yet again don't have an "innate understanding of statistics".  Damn, whaz up wid dat?

Holy crap, people FEEL that "something bad is more likely to happen" if you are off cheating on your spouse and leaving junior to fend for himself, than if you have charged across the street to save the neighbors baby from a house fire! The psychologists are SHOCKED, shocked I tell you! that people don't come to the rational conclusion that "the odds of bad things happening" are  dependent on the age of the child and the time left, NOT on the activity that the abandoning parent is off to.

The left will continue to work hard to remove any innate sense of morality -- their usual technique is to exterminate those people who retain such a feeling in hopes that it will create a "more perfect society" (see Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc) after the only remaining people are able to reach suitably leftist conclusions on the basis of hard statistical evidence! If you are the sort that feels some pang of "injustice" that such clearly defective humans would be slaughtered, you are also likely the kind of reactionary that fails to see the justice of murdering 60 million babies for convenience.

Don't worry, such obviously non-adaptive thought is being weeded out -- the brave new world is visible now. Soon "moral outrage" will be a thing of the past and life will be much more rational!

One of the big benefits is that NPR and leftist psychologists will no longer be confused.

'via Blog this'

No comments:

Post a Comment