Ah! The good old nature vs. nurture argument. I see you have decided totally in favor of nurture.
No I think you made that decision
Boy howdy
In fact I have here a quote from your link.
It has often been asked which has more effect on a child’s development: nature (Genetic influences on the growth and development of a child.) or nurture (The influences of the environment, experiences, and education on the growth and development of the child.) This is no longer a controversy in the early childhood field. There is a complex interplay between these two in the development of an infant (Gottlieb, 1992). Both play their parts in shaping who the infant will become.
That seems to agree with the prevailing sentiment.
Who's sentiment? Certainly not mine!
I figured it out for myself a long time ago. Nature predisposes us to certain characteristics, nurture refines the characteristics.
What is nature? Is it the nature where dinosaurs exist or the nature of our future development?
To a large extent our personality is dictated by our genetic heritage but there is a large overlay of education. The education can take many forms. Education doesn't come just in school, but from the whole world around us.
Are you are speaking of the collective consciousness and its affect as nature upon both prenatal development and human growth and awareness?
In fact your example of the turkeys and guineas seems to indicate just what I have said before about imprinting.
Imprinting would seem to favor the nature of external forces and not "
gene specific" dominance.
But notice that the adult turkeys attacked the young turkeys and guineas, because they were not a part of the in group.
Actually, what I wrote was that the adult Guineas attacked the young guineas, which supports an idea that your powers of comprehension affect your ability to observe and determine reality... but I digress
What I found interesting was that if prejudice is something supported by having the ability to identify relationship (to something or someone) was that it kinda supports the idea that the mother who gave birth to her children had no ability to recognize them. Interesting how prejudice could be used as a theme towards the ability to recognize, when the fact was that there was definitely a clear lack of recognition within the mother guineas repeated behavior. it would seem to support a territorial mindset however.
I guess it just depends on what you want to argue for.
That appears to me to be an expression of an inbuilt prejudice.
Right, where ones own kind attack each other by their inherent nature, because of a lack of cognitive resonance.
That is just what was shown in the report that Sabine gave the link to.
I don't think so. That, is assumed, not shown as definitive.
The only difference was that the children were involved in a controlled experiment which showed clearly that children, and people in general, do have a tendency towards prejudice.
And love, kindness, compassion, intelligence, reasoning, coordination, mechanical skills, philosophy, science, art, drama etc. etc. all of which are packaged up in a 15 month child and available to the observer
The idea actually seems to want to point to the idea of racism being a scientific fact in that it (science in this particular case) specifically points to the use of mixed race babies with same race parents (without discussing the parents beliefs and racial bias).
It doesn't say they had used mixed race parents with a bi-racial baby and whether it (the baby) had a disposition for or against either parents race.
It seems rather to isolate one race against another.
And the example of the mothers statement:
When my older daughter was three or four years old, we approached an African American cashier in a store and she asked her, “Are you sad that you don’t have light skin?” I winced and began to splutter an apology, but the woman answered, “No, honey. Are you said that you don’t have dark skin?” When my daughter said no, the woman responded, “So you see? We’re both happy with who we are.”
towards the response of the adult woman who said "we're both happy with who we are" would seem to support the curiosity of the child rather than any inbred prejudice or condemnation and separation, as well as having a lack of exposure or education regarding racial equality. I guess this could point to an idea where assumptions could be made about the white mother who was embarrassed but secretly hides her prejudice from community, yet openly expresses her prejudice in front of her child, making statements about how lucky she is to be white...
Further, the parent had been raised in a white suburban community that had more than the adjacent black community a few blocks away where there was poverty, drug use, unemployment and gang activity.
