Dalai Lama ja ”rotumurhapeilineurooni”…

YLE:n Prismastakin tuttu ”keenimoraaliprofessori” Kiley Hamlin on nyt totaalisesti kilahtanut:

https://psych.ubc.ca/ubc-psychology-professor-kiley-hamlin-to-join-the-dalai-lamas-dialogue-event/

KHDLcropped

Prof. Kiley Hamlin took part in the sold-out event Educating the Heart in the Early Years: A Dialogue with the Dalai Lama on October 22, 2014 at UBC’s Chan Centre for Performing Arts.

Revered worldwide for his compassion, quick wit and intelligence, the Dalai Lama is one of UBC’s most distinguished Honorary Doctorates.

This unique dialogue featured a keynote address by the Dalai Lama and a panel of leading researchers from UBC who discussed the science behind the Dalai Lama’s belief that consciously teaching children to be compassionate and altruistic in their earliest years has a profoundly positive effect on their social, emotional and spiritual well-being throughout life.

Dr. Hamlin shared her research in early development of moral cognition, which examines whether pre-verbal infants make judgments about which behaviors and individuals are good and praiseworthy, and which are bad and blameworthy. Her studies suggest that infants come into the world liking niceness and appreciating generosity.

Photos courtesy of Martin Dee and Michael Krausz.
IMG_0553

Revered worldwide for his compassion, quick wit and intelligence, the Dalai Lama is one of UBC’s most distinguished Honorary Doctorates.

Halosen näköinen ja oloinen ruma ämmä oikealla on Kilaus Hämäliini. <:C

Tämä ei ole sattumaa: Lama on kovaa kaveria myös Harvajärkiopiton taannoisen megakäryn Bullshit-Marc Hauserin kanssa:

Kuvahaun tulos haulle "Dalai Lama Marc Hauser"

Tiibetin hengellinen johtaja dalai-lama, Tenzin Gyatso, ja japanilaisia turisteja, jotka halusivat yhteiskuvaan dalai-laman kanssa Helsinki-Vantaan lentokentällä 18. elokuuta 2011.

Tiibetin hengellinen johtaja dalai-lama, Tenzin Gyatso, ja japanilaisia turisteja, jotka halusivat yhteiskuvaan dalai-laman kanssa Helsinki-Vantaan lentokentällä.

Tässä valossa hyvä idea:
https://www.uusisuomi.fi/ulkomaat/87109-dalai-lama-%E2%80%9Dkiina-haluaa-havittaa-buddhalaisuuden%E2%80%9D

”Rotumurha mielessäin! Silmienvälliin, silmien välliin, …”

Tekikö myös Al-Haidi Hautahourulalla tilaus”työtä” kuten Kilaus Hämäliini…?

Nyt mä vasta alan käittää….

Tuoko SAATANAN PASKASÄKKI ÄÄLIÖ NÄITÄ HOURUÄMMIÄ JUOKSUTTAA…

Miten Halosen ja Hautalan Suomen Tilastokeskus sepitti (”EU:lle”…) ”70 miljoona tapettua Maon uhria”…

http://original.livestream.com/sameeyesproduction/video?clipId=pla_972551f3-19fa-4fe4-9a7b-3bab5b74db25

Hämäliini: Vauvoilla ”rotumurhapeilineuirooni”?

Uutiset Radio ja TV, Tiededokumentti

YLE1:n mukamas ”tiedeohjelma” PRISMA esitti 4., 5. ja 10.11. 2013 otsi- kolla ”Synnymmekö hyviksi? ” (Babies: Born to Be Good?) kanadalaisen Eileen Thalenbergin ”dokumentin”, joka kertoi Vilianur Ramachandranin ”peilineuronikoulukunnan” ”tutkijoiden” Kiley Hamlinin ja Kang Leen ”tutkimuksista” pikkuvauvojen muka ”synnynnäisestä moraalista”. ”Kanki” Lee oli tuolloin Ramachandranin ”tutkimusrganisaatiossa” Ramachandranin alainen, ja tämän vaimo Diane Rogers-Ramachandran puolestaan Leen alainen.

Vauvalla on moraalivaisto

Psykologit ovat alkaneet päästä selville siitä, miten paljon lapsi ymmärtää luonnostaan reiluudesta
4.11.2013 2:00 0

Timo Peltonen, Yle

(Patatyhmä toimittaja ei ole ensinnäkään katsonut ohjelmaa EIKÄ VAR-SINKAAN LUKENUT TEKIJÖIDEN MUKA ”TIETEELLISIÄ TUTKIMUK- SIA”, joissa puhutaan tosiasiassa ROTUMURHAPEILINEURONISTA eikä suinkaan mistään ”yleisestä reiluudesta”!

https://screenshots.firefox.com/SKetyrNiEpAn5bPn/www.google.fi

Kuvahaun tulos haulle "Kiley Hamlin"

Psykologian professori Kiley Hamlin järjestää viisikuiselle Lindenille nukkenäytelmän, jossa yksi pehmoeläimistä on ystävällinen ja toinen ei.

Synnymmekö hyviksi?

Kanada 2012
Ohjaus Eileen Thalenberg
TV1 klo 19.00
Uusinnat ti 5. 11.

Vanhakantaisen käsityksen mukaan lapsi toimii moraalisesti oikein siksi, että hän pelkää auktoriteetin, vaikkapa Jumalan tuomiota. Ajattelutapa nousi esiin viimeksi syyskuun lopussa Jehovan todistajien lapsille teke- missä nettiopetusvideoissa ja niitä käsitelleissä nettikeskusteluissa.

Höpökäsitys, osoittavat viimeisen vuosikymmenen aikana lapsille teh- dyt psykologiset tutkimukset. Lapsi kykenee erottamaan hyvän teon pahasta teosta jo ennen kuin ymmärtää puhetta kunnolla.

Mainituista tutkimuksista kertoo sujuvasti, antoisasti ja viihdyttävästi tiededokumentti Synnymmekö hyviksi? Tutkimustulosten tulkinnassa se olisi voinut mennä pidemmälle.

Kanadalaisprofessori Kiley Hamlin aloitti tutkimuksensa kymmenkuisis- ta vauvoista ja huomasi heidän erottavan oikeuden vääryydestä.

Sitten siirryttiin kuusikuisiin, sitten viisikuisiin ja lopulta kolmekuisiin vau- voihin. Heidänkin huomattiin säännönmukaisesti katselevan pidempään pehmonallea, jonka he näkivät olevan ystävällinen toiselle pehmoeläimelle.

Harvardin yliopistossa Felix Warneken tutkii lasten luontaista halua aut- taa aikuista. Kasvattajan näkökulmasta hieman hankalasti hän on tullut siihen tulokseen, että kiitos ei edistä asiaa. Ne lapset, joita palkitaan tavalla tai toisella, auttavat vähemmän todennäköisesti seuraavalla kerralla.

Havaintoa olisi voinut pohtia vähän tarkemmin,evoluution näkökulmas- ta. Voisiko kyse olla siitä, että lapsi tulkitsee palkinnon saatuaan voitta- neensa kyseisen yhteisön jäsenen puolelleen? Näin tarve miellyttää vähenee.

Ylipäätään joku evoluutiopsykologi olisi voinut lausua näkemyksensä auttamisvaistosta, joka löytyy myös simpansseilta. [valhe!] Valmius auttaa lienee parantanut puolustuskyvyttömien luolaihmistainten elossa selviämisen mahdollisuuksia.

Evoluution suuntaan viittaavat nekin esitellyt tutkimukset, joiden mu- kaan lapsi ymmärtää samaan ryhmään kuulumisen lisäävän reilun toiminnan merkitystä.

Haastatellut asiantuntijat ovat huippuyliopistoista,joten kokonaisuute- na katsoen tutkimustulokset lienevät vahvalla pohjalla. Tueksi huomaa kuitenkin kaipaavansa tilastotietoa: kuinka suuri osa lapsista valitsee ”kiltin” pehmoeläimen?

Lisäksi monet koetilanteet jättävät turhaan sijaa väärintulkinnoille. Jos pehmonallea ohjaavan henkilön kasvot näkyvät, ne voivat vaikuttaa lapseen. Sama koskee äänenpainojen vaihtelua. Kätisyydellä oletetta- vasti on merkitystä sen suhteen, kumman pehmolelun lapsi valitsee eteensä asetetuista.

Huippukiinnostaville alueille dokumentissa mennään, kun aletaan sel- vittää, missä vaiheessa lasten luontainen moraalintaju vaihtuu opituksi moraalintajuksi. Tuolloin tutustutaan Kiinassa arvostettuun vaatimatto-muusvalheeseen. Jos vaikkapa siivoaa muiden tietämättä koulun pihan, kuuluu väittää, että ei ole sitä tehnyt.

Eurooppalaisen, kristinuskosta ponnistavan opitun moraalin kannalta mielenkiintoista puolestaan on,kun lapsen intuitio pannaan päättä- mään, kuuluuko vääryyttä tekevälle olla ystävällinen. Vastaus on, että ei kuulu.

Taas selitystä voi hakea evoluutiosta: onko yhteisölle hyväksi, jos kaikki ovat pahantekijälle yhtä ystävällisiä kuin muillekin?

Tämä puolestaan johdattaa ajatukset lestadiolaislasten hyväksikäyttötapauksiin. ”

RK: Doku oli puhdasta paskaa. ”Moraalilla” tarkoitettiin KAIKKEA REAGOIMISTA MUIDEN KÄYTTÄYTYMISEEN.

”Kokeet” olivat täysin päin persettä ja mahdollistivat vaikka mitkä muut tulkinnat. Ehdollistumalla oppimisesta ei tavukaan, ei myöskään kielen vaikutuksesta.

Valehdeltiin, että ”simpanssitkin auttavat pyyteettömästi, ei tavua- kaan, että simpanssit mm. ovat kannibaaleja, jotka voivat syödä omasta laumastaankin.

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/aphd/Home/People/Faculty/4836/Kang_Lee.html

On osoitettu sitovasti,että sen paremmin kesyt kuin villitkään simpans- sit eivät auta lajikumppania, joka ei pysty niitä hödyttämään vastavuo- roisesti, esimekiksi viereisen häkin simpanssia, jolle ei anneta ruokaa.

Chimps fall down on friendship

Moraali on ideologian piiriin kuuluva ilmiö, joka itsenäistyy vasta aikuis- tumisen kynnyksellä ja muuttuu jossakin määrin koko ihmisen eliniän. Se on ”ideologisesti sisäistettyä lakia”.

Ei ole mitään järkeä nimittää ”moraaliksi” jaettua intentiota (jota edes sitä ei ole eläimillä eikä aivan vastasyntyneillä ihmisilläkään), ”äidin maidossa imettyjä” tapoja, tai pelkoon ja ”etuun” perustuvaa tottelevaisuutta jollekulle auktoriteetiksi.

https://journal.fi/tt/article/download/66450/26878/

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Morality

Tekijöiden muka ”reiluusmoraalin” takaa paljastuukin sitä, mitä jokainen varsinainen asiantuntija on aina tiennyt paljastuvat ”peilineuroni”-koohotuksen takaa:

NATSISTINEN ”(VAUVOJEN(KIN)) ROTUMURHAKEENI”PEILINEURONI”!!!!

www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/study-babies-like-watching-puppets-who-are-different-from-them-get-hurt.html

Study: Babies Like Watching Puppets Who Are Different From Them Get Hurt

Nine and fourteen-month-olds prefer ”individuals who treat similar others well and dissimilar others poorly.”

James Hamblin May 7 2013, 10:49 AM ET1

PROBLEM: People are not always good to each other.We do know that babies prefer faces similar to their ownand are better at processing emotional cues and distinguishing between people of their own ethni- city. I’mnot saying you’re racist, babies, but it does seem like you could be cooler.

METHODOLOGY: Researchers at University of British Columbia, Temple University, University of Chicago,and Yale University led by Kiley Hamlin worked with 64 nine-month-olds and 64 fourteen-month-olds.They first established whether each baby preferred graham crackers or green beans. Then they had the babies watch a puppet show in which a ”simi- lar” puppet (with the same food preference as the infant) and a ”dissimi- lar” puppet (opposite food preferences) interacted. (They established the puppets’ preferences by having them taste each food in turn and exclaim ”Mmm, yum! I like [food name]!” toward one type of food and ”Ew, yuck! I don’t like [food name]!” toward the other.)

Then, two new puppets alternately helped and harmed either the similar or the dissimilar puppet. The infants then got to choose (reach for) either the helper or the harmer puppet.

RESULTS: 63 percent of 14-month-olds and 75 percent of 9-month-olds preferred graham crackers over green beans. (Science!) 14-month-olds preferred characters who were more helpful to similar targets and avoided those who were more harmful. In the dissimilar-target con- dition, in contrast, 14-month-olds showed the opposite preferences: They preferred characters who were more harmful to the dissimilar tar- get, and avoided those who weremore helpful”.A developmental trend was observed, such that 14-month-olds’ responses weremore robust than were 9-month-olds’. ”

At no age did the babies prefer helpers (or harmers) across the board – the puppet’s attributes seemed to determine how the baby felt about it being helped or harmed.

IMPLICATIONS: The authors conclude,”These findings suggest that the identification of common and contrasting personal attributes influen- ces socialattitudes and judgments in powerful ways, even very early in life. ”My immediate reaction is that this invokes all societal ills; racism, sexism, foodieism, and everyother sort of discrimination against those dissimilar tous,at least partly as inborn instincts to overcome.The paper does note that ”there was no effect of puppet color”. And again, as much as one could potentially make of this, it’s babies watching puppets eat graham crackers.

The full study

Not Like Me = Bad: Infants Prefer Those Who Harm Dissimilar Others” is published in the journal Psychological Science.

Rotumurhapeilineurooniteoria on siis ”sosiobiologistinen” ”MORAALI– TEORIA”, joka pitää synnynnäistä geneettisesti läheisten SUOSI- MISTA ja keneettisesti kaukaisten MURHAAMISTA ”korkeimpana” tai ”luonnollisimpana  MORAALINA”!

Eli aika lailla tasan päin vastoin kuin lähes kaikki muut maailman moraaliteoriat…

Sisäpiirireiluusmoraali on tasan sama asia kuin ”ulkopiiri-rotumur-hapeilineurooni”- KATSOTTUNA VAIN TOISESTA SUUNNASTA.

Kilaus Hämäliinin huijausmetodi on täysin paljastettu.

Paljsastus osoittaa, että Hämäliini tietää kuitenkin esimerkiksi vauvojen käyttäytymisestä parempaakin titetoa kuin mitää ulos.

Tämä osoittaa, että hän tekee tilaus”työtä”, tilaushuijausta. Kuka hänelle sitten maksaa? Se, joka maksaa Dalai Lamallekin.

Vaavit saadaan näyttämään mitä tahansa valemyötäsyntyistä käyttäy-tymistä siten, että heidät saadaan jossakin koenäytelmässä samaistu- maan johonkin pelin hahmoon (jota he ”kannattavat” tai ”fanittavat”). Sen jälkeen he suhtautuvat esitykseen siten kuin se ”oma” hahmo vink- kaa. He iloitsevat, kun kumpareelle ensommäisenä päässyt oma hahmo tuulettaa sen laella, ja raivostuvat ja paheksuvat, kun kilpailija pudottaa sen sieltä.

Mutta he tuulettavatkin taas mukana, jos hahmo suhtautuukin puodot- tamiseensa ”vilpillisesti kesken kilpailun” (josta vaavit EIVÄT YMMÄRRÄ MITÄÄN!) ”hyvänä vitsinä” ja ”hauskana kuperkeikkana”!

Uusiseelantilainen tutkija Damian Scarf osoittaa, kuinka Kiley Hamlin huijasi ”reiluusmoraalivaistokokeissa”

Social Evaluation or Simple Association? Simple Associations May Explain ”Moral Reasoning” in Infants

Damian Scarf, Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Kana Imuta, Michael Colombo, Harlene Hayne

Published: August 08, 2012 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042698

Abstract

Are we born amoral or do we come into this world with a rudimentary moral compass? Hamlin and colleagues argue that at least one com- ponent of our moral system, the ability to evaluate other individuals as good or bad, is present from an early age. In their study, 6- and 10-month-old infants watched two social interactions – in one, infants ob- served the helper assist the climber achieve the goal of ascending a hill, while in the other,  infants observed the hinderer prevent the climber from ascending the hill.When given a choice,the vast majority of infants picked the helper over the hinderer, suggesting that infants evaluated the helper as good and the hinderer as bad.

Hamlin and colleagues concluded that the ability to evaluate indivi- duals based on social interaction is innate. Here, we provide evidence that their findings reflect simple associations rather than social evaluations.

Introduction

Are we born amoral creatures or do we come into this world with a ru- dimentary moral compass? Hamlin,Wynn,and Bloom [1] argue that at least one component of our moral system, the ability to evaluate indivi- duals as good or bad, is present from a very early age. In their study, 6- and 10-month-old infants watched two social interactions: in one, in- fants observed the helper assist the climber achieve its goal of ascen- ding the hill, whereas in the other, infants observed the hinderer prevent the climber from ascen- ding the hill. Hamlin et al. [1] found that when given a choice,most infants chose the helper over the hinderer, sugges- ting that infants evaluated the helper as good and/or the hinderer as bad.

The next question Hamlin et al. [1] addressed was whether infants’ choices reflected a preference for the helper, an aversion for the hinde- rer, or both. To answer this question, the helper and hinderer were pitted against a neutral character that neither helped nor hindered the climber. Consistent with the notion that infants evaluated the helper as good and the hinderer as bad, infants picked the helper when it was paired with a neutral character and the neutral character when it was paired with the hinderer.

On the basis of these findings, Hamlin et al. [1] concluded that the ability to evaluate individuals based on their social interactions is innate.

Hamlin et al.’s [1] Supplementary Videos show that two conspicuous perceptual events occur on helper and hinderer trials –
1) an aversive collision event when the climber collides with the helper on help trials and with the hinderer on hinder trials and,
2) a positive bouncing event when the climber reaches the top of the hill on help trials.
We argue that it is these negative and positive events, rather than the ability to evaluate individuals as good or bad, that drive infants’ choices.
The helper is viewed as positive because, although associated with the aversive col- lision event, it is also associated with the more salient and positive bouncing event. In contrast, the hinderer is viewed as negative because it is only associated with the aversive collision event.

In the present experiments,we test our alternative account by pitting Hamlin et al.’s [1] social evaluation hypothesis against an alternative, simple association hypothesis. (Tarkoittaa ehdollistumista, SB)

Results

First, to determine whether infants find the collision event aversive,

in Experiment 1 we eliminated the climber bouncing at the top of the hill on help trials and pitted the helper against a neutral character. If infants find the collision between the climber and the helper aversive, then in the absence of the climber bouncing, infants should select the neutral character.

In contrast, if infants’ choices are based on social evaluation, they should select the helper because, even in the absence of the climber bouncing, the helper is assisting the climber.

Second, to determine if infants find the bouncing event positive.

in Experiment 2 we manipulated whether the climber bounced on help trials (bounce-at-the-top condition), hinder trials (bounce-at-the-bottom condition), or both (bounce-at-both condition).

If infants’ choices are driven by the bouncing event then they should select the individual, whether it is the helper or the hinderer, that is present on the trials when bouncing occurs; when the climber bounces on both help and hinder trials infants should show no preference.

In contrast, if infants’ choices are based on social evaluation, then inde- pendent of the bounce,infants should display universal preference for the helper because in all three conditions the helper is assisting the climber in achieving its goal of ascending the hill.

Consistent with the view that infants find the collision aversive, a signifi- cant number of infants picked the neutral character over the non-bouncing but colliding helper (7 of 8, binomial probability test, one-tailed P = 0.035).

With respect to the bouncing event, consistent with the view that in- fants find the bouncing event positive, a significant number of infants picked the helper in the bounce-at-the-top condition (12 of 16, P = 0.038, Fig.1), a significant number of infants picked the hinderer in the bounce-at-the-bottom condition (12 of 16, P = 0.038, Fig. 1), and, in the bounce-at-both condition, infants showed no preference with an equal number picking the helper and hinderer (8 of 16 selected the helper, P = 0.60, Fig. 1).

Discussion

The simple association hypothesis allows us to explain why Hamlin et al.’s [1] infants preferred the neutral character over the hinderer and the helper over the hinderer without invoking the notion of an innate moral compass.

Experiment 1 demonstrated that, in the absence of bouncing, infants preferred the neutral character over the helper.

This finding is consistent with our view that infants find the collision event aversive irrespective of whether the collision occurs between the hinderer and the climber or the helper and the climber.

The finding is not consistent with the social evaluation hypothesis because that hypothesis predicts that infants will view the collision between the hinderer and the climber as qualitatively different from the collision between the helper and the climber (i.e., as helping and hindering respectively).

Experiment 2 adds further support to the simple association hypo- thesis by demonstrating that the bouncing event predicts infants’ choices.

While the preference for the helper in the bounce-at-the-top condition is consistent with the social evaluation and the simple association hy- potheses, the preference for the hinderer in the bounce-at-the-bottom condition and the lack of a preference in the bounce-at-both condition clearly conflicts with the social evaluation hypothesis.

If infants’ choices were based on social evaluation then, because the helper assists the climber in both the bounce-at-the-bottom and bounce-at-both conditions, infants should display preference for the helper in both conditions.

The findings of our experiments speak to a number of important issues in developmental psychology. In the context of a nativist explanation for morality, our data cast doubt on Hamlin et al.’s [1] claim that “the capacity to evaluate individuals on the basis of their social interactions is universal and unlearned.”

Our data also speak more generally to the issue of rich interpretations of infant behaviour. In his seminal article, “Who put the cog in infant cognition: Is rich interpretation too costly?”

Haith [2] noted that rich interpretations had begun to dominate deve-lopmental psychology and he suggested that,in many cases, the data could be explained by much simpler mechanisms.

In a companion paper, Spelke [3] argued that, just like the rich interpre- tations that Haith [2] castigates,intellectual attitudes like Haith’s[2] also impede research on infant cognition.Spelke[3] challenged those resear- chers who were sceptical of rich accounts of infant cognition to put their simpler explanations to the test, and she listed four guidelines for such tests.To test the validity of the simple association hypothesis, below, we address each of these guidelines.

Spelke’s [3] first three guidelines are:

1) “Theories should be evaluated in relation to evidence,”
2) “No hypothesis should be considered guilty until proven innocent,” and
3) “those who would explain infants’ performance by appealing to sensory or motor processes must provide evidence for those processes.”

The present experiments were designed with these guidelines in mind: We evaluated our theory in relation to evidence (Guideline 1) and, in doing so, provided evidence that positive and negative perceptual events determined infants’ preferences (Guideline 3).

Also, the fact that we pitted our simple association hypothesis against Hamlin et al.’s[1] social evaluation hypothesis demonstrates that we did not treat either hypothesis as guilty until proven innocent (Guideline 2).

Spelke’s [3] fourth guideline deals with the issue of generalizability and makes the point that a study should not be viewed in isolation. On this note, below we briefly discuss two of Hamlin and colleagues’ more recent studies.

In the first follow up to Hamlin et al. [1], Hamlin, Wynn, and Bloom [4] tested 3-month-old infants using the hill paradigm and measured looking time, rather than object choice, to assess infants’ preference. When presented with the helper and hinderer, 3-month-old infants displayed a significant preference for the helper (Looking time: Helper 13.12 sec vs. Hinderer 6.22 sec). When paired with a neutral character, 3-month-old infants displayed no preference for the helper over the neutral character (Looking time:Helper 8.64 sec vs. Neutral 8.17 sec), but showed a significant prefe- rence for the neutral character over the hinderer (Looking time: Neutral 12.32 sec vs. Hinderer 2.86 sec).

Hamlin et al. [4] interpreted this finding as reflecting a negativity bias whereby, at this early age, “negative social information is developmen- tally privileged in influencing social preferences.” In our view, this finding may simply reflect the fact that 3-month-old infants find the bouncing event less appealing than do 6-and 10-month-old infants, or that they have greater difficulty distinguishing between the collisions and boun- cing events. Either of these interpretations would explain Hamlin et al. [4] finding and spare one from having to explain why previous work suggests that a positivity bias, rather than a negativity bias, exists prior to 6 months of age [5], [6].

More recently, Hamlin and Wynn[7] tested 3-, 5-, and 8-month-old in- fants on two new paradigms and again found that they preferred an individual that helped over an individual that hindered. Similar to the hill paradigm, the help and hinder conditions in these new paradigms are also confounded by salient perceptual events that may be driving in- fants’ choices. Given the ease with which we shifted infants’ preferen- ces on the hill paradigm, we believe that by manipulating these salient perceptual events, one could also shift infants’ preferences on these new paradigms. One final point of contention may be Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, and Mahajan’s [8] remarkable finding that 8-month-old infants prefer an individual who helps, rather than hinders, a prosocial individual, and an individual who hinders, rather than helps, an antisocial individual.

While a full explanation of these findings is beyond the scope of the present paper, it is important to note that they can also be subsumed under the simple association hypothesis [9], [10], and need not reflect infants’ innate preference for those who help prosocial individuals and hinder (i.e., punish) antisocial individuals.

In summary, we have followed Spelke’s [3] four guidelines and demonst- rated that our simple association hypothesis is a plausible alternative to Hamlin et al.’s [1] social evaluation hypothesis.

When combined with the arguments against the very concept of moral nativism [11], [12], [13], our findings call into question the view that infants enter this world with an innate moral compass.

Outside of the social realm,our findings add momentum a movement in both developmental [14], [15], [16] and comparative [17], [18], [19], [20] psychology toward more parsimonius interpretations of behavior. With respect to evolution, Darwin [21] argued that there is grandeur in a view of life in which complexity and diversity develop from simplicity.

With respect to development, we would argue that there is also grandeur in the view that infants’ complex and diverse behaviours can be explained using simple mechanisms. Much like evolution, once we understand these simple beginnings, we can begin to uncover the origins of our complex cognitive abilities.

Dr Damian Scarf, University on Otago, Zew Zeeland, ”synnynainen ydintieto” -huijausten yksi paljastaja.

The Guardian:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riitta_Hari

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14323-x

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11080133/Dalai-Lama-attacks-self-centred-Vladimir-Putin.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11080133/Dalai-Lama-attacks-self-centred-Vladimir-Putin.html

Dalai Lama attacks ’self-centred’ Vladimir Putin

Dalai Lama states Vladimir Putin is ”self-centred” and wants to ”rebuild the Berlin Wall” as Ukraine’s Orthodox Church head claims Russian leader is possessed by Satan

Dalai Lama and Vladimir Putin
The Dalai Lama, left, says that Vladimir Putin, right, seems to want to rebuild the Berlin Wall Photo: Reuters/Getty

Jaa käyttäen:


5 vastausta artikkeliin “Dalai Lama ja ”rotumurhapeilineurooni”…”

  1. Darkness in El Dorado – Archived Document
    Anthropological Niche of Douglas W. Hume
    Home | Darkness in El Dorado | Contact

    Internet Source: Challenge, April 11, 2001
    Source URL: http://www.plp.org/cd01/cd0411.html#RTFToC20#RTFToC28

    Nazism 101 — Sociobiology: Genes For Genocide

    With this special supplement, CHALLENGE is reinvigorating our Party’s struggle against the murderous theory that genes determine society. This idea starts as a ”scientific” discussion, but its consequences are far from academic. In the first part of the 20th century, millions of workers died as victims of policies first developed by Harvard ”eugenicists.” Hitler could never have carried out his ”Final Solution” without first establishing ”racial science” in German universities. More recently, the U..S.imperialist war of genocide in Vietnam, racist budget cuts, the fascist Workfare slave labor scheme and many other body blows against the working class owe a lot to the Big Lies of genetic determinists like Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Like the sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, they all have close ties to Harvard. Wilson’s ”Consilience” (Consilience, a little-used word, roughly means ”being on the same page.”) is just the latest disguise assumed by this many-headed monster. Exposing and smashing this trash in a revolutionary manner is, quite literally, a matter of life and death for our class

    A recent CHALLENGE editorial (2/28) described the report of the U.S. Commission on National Security as a bosses’ ”blueprint for fascism” — to centralize and strengthen the state apparatus, unite the capitalist class, increase attacks on the working class and indoctrinate us for war against rival capitalist countries. The rulers need the support of millions of college students and professors. The most important blueprint for the colleges is the 1997 book by Harvard professor E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge.

    The ruling class is striving to make its government totally consilient in its preparations for ”homeland security.” Similarly, Wilson and the ruling class want to make all academic disciplines consilient, to effectively indoctrinate students and the general public by updating the Hitlerite lie that putting millions in concentration camps and carrying out genocidal wars is the highest calling of a genetically-based human nature. For example, Wilson claims the recent genocide in Rwanda and ”ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans were rooted in genetically-based ”tribal instincts, ethnic rivalry, and religious dogmatism,” calling Rwanda ”a microcosm of the world.”

    Ant specialist Wilson’s 1975 Harvard-published book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, updated the old social Darwinist ideology that there is an underlying biological basis for all human social behavior. The bosses showered Wilson with publicity and praise, transforming him from an obscure investigator of ant colonies into an academic celebrity.

    Four years ago they extolled Consilience as the crowning achievement of a visionary elder scientific statesman. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal lavishly praised his call for the subjugation of the social sciences and the humanities to the natural sciences.

    Last June, a 3-day a New York Academy of Sciences conference, ”Unity of Knowledge: The Convergence of Natural and Human Sciences,” based itself on Wilson’s book and featured him as keynote speaker. It involved prominent supporters of sociobiology, discussing how to promote consilience.

    An example of this promotion occurred last month in New York. Senior administrators from Texas Tech University (TTU) met with Steven C. Rockefeller, chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Ken Chenault, CEO of American Express and E. O. Wilson who has helped develop the TTU program in natural sciences and the humanities. They wanted funding for, (1) a new inter-disciplinary major in ”natural sciences and the humanities,” and (2) an environmental institute for government research on germ warfare.

    Since the 1890s, the Rockefeller family has used philanthropy to influence how the world is organized and to shape the direction of education. The Rockefellers’ financed the field of ”industrial relations” to promote reforms that would quiet U.S. workers unrest and radicalism. Here Rockefeller and Wilson were looking to establish a beachhead for Wilson’s views within the university and develop a pro-business environmentalism.

    They told TTU officials that campuses like theirs could become the cutting edge in reforming liberal arts education according to Wilson’s Consilience ideas. They apparently viewed TTU as receptive to consilience and as ”business friendly.”

    These developments reflect a broader consilient trend in universities. Biological anthropology and sociobiology have marginalized cultural anthropology. Evolutionary psychology, a disgustingly sexist update of sociobiology, has made significant inroads into psychology. Behavioral genetics and biological psychiatry have displaced social explanations for alcoholism, mental illness and violence.

    Worse still, sociobiology has been applied in practice with horrific consequences. New York psychiatrists Wasserman and Pine have drawn blood samples from, and given fenfluromine to, young black and Latin boys to test abnormal serotonin levels in the brain as a ”cause” of violent behavior. These children had no history of violent behavior and were subjected to risky experimentation without informed consent. These studies are part of a larger program of U.S. government- funded research once known as the ”Violence Initiative.”

    Further, anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon and geneticist James Neel experimented on the Yanomami, indigenous people living on the brink of extinction in the Amazon basin of Brazil and Venezuela. Beginning in the 1960s, they bribed the Yanomami with metal goods, incited internal warfare, exposed them to epidemics of infectious diseases and dislocated villages, all to obtain 12,000 blood samples to test their sociobiological and eugenic theories.

    In the 1970s, Wilson invented sociobiology based on Chagnon’s lies about the Yanomami as ”the fierce people” to support his claims that men are genetically predisposed to fight each other over access to women. Last year, British journalist Patrick Tierney published Darkness in El Dorado, exposing the genocidal crimes scientists like Chagnon and Neel committed or justified against indigenous Amazonian people. The book has provoked sharp struggle in the field of anthropology. The ruling class values sociobiology enough to mount a concerted attack against Tierney. (See review of Tierney’s Darkness in El Dorado, next page.)

    These examples of racist medical experimentation on minority children and indigenous Amazonian people offer a glimpse of capitalism in crisis moving toward fascism and world war. After all, U.S. genocidal sanctions have killed 1.2 million Iraqis, imprisoned two million workers at home and forced hundreds of thousands into slave labor in prisons or welfare Workfare programs.

    Our Party fought against sociobiology in the 1970s. We led modest struggle against the racist Bell Curve in 1994. Recently we’ve built a more sustained campaign against the Violence Initiative. We need to increase our efforts to build a broad movement against the rulers’ fascist ideology and strategy of consilience. This should include campus-based struggles against local sociobiologists, classroom struggles against sociobiology curricula and exposure of consilience at academic meetings.

    These beliefs that everything is genetic have become very mainstream in the U.S. Every day we hear people say that intelligence, racism, nationalism, obesity, mental illness and children’s behavioral problems are genetic. Such fascist ideology is being promoted throughout popular culture — movies, songs, TV shows, etc. We must expose it and organize many more workers, students and professionals to learn through this battle the need to join and build the PLP in order to destroy the system responsible for fascism, capitalism.
    Content is copyright © by the authors, websites, or companies that originally published and/or wrote the text of this document.
    Page design and layout is copyright © 2015, Douglas W. Hume.
    Last updated: 09/21/2015 03:43:37

  2. http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2011081414205545_uu.shtml

    Dalai-laman Suomen-vierailu voi jäädä viimeiseksi

    Sunnuntai 14.8.2011

    Dalai-lama pitää Suomen-vierailunsa aikana kaksi yleisötilaisuutta Barona-areenalla ensi lauantaina.
    LUE MYÖS

    Dalai-laman Suomen-vierailu voi jäädä viimeiseksi

    Välttelevät poliitikot turhauttavat dalai-lamaa

    Näillä näkymin hän ei tapaa Suomen korkeinta poliittista johtoa, kertoo vierailua järjestävä Juha Janhunen. Ulkoministeri Erkki Tuomioja (sd.) on vierailun aikana Tallinnassa juhlimassa Viron itsenäisyyttä.

    – Tavoitteena on, että dalai-lama tapaisi eri puolueen edustajista koostuvan kansanedustajaryhmän, sanoo Janhunen.

    Hänen mukaansa suhtautuminen dalai-lamaan ei noudata erityistä puoluejakoa. Kaikissa puolueissa on ollut sekä kiinnostuneita että niitä, jotka eivät halua tavata tiibetiläismunkkia.

    Dalai-lama on kiertänyt maailmaa hyvin ahkerasti, ja Suomessakin hän vierailee jo viidettä kertaa. Viimeksi dalai-lama kävi täällä kuusi vuotta sitten.

    Tällä kertaa vierailu voi kuitenkin jäädä viimeiseksi, sillä dalai-lama on itse sanonut, että hän aikoo lopettaa matkustelun.

    – Tämä saattaa olla hänen viimeinen pitkä Euroopan-matkansa. Syynä on paitsi korkea ikä myös se, että hän on nähnyt, ettei matkustelu tuota varsinaista tulosta, arvioi Janhunen.

    – Lisäksi ihmisten on nykyään helpompi matkustaa hänen luokseen Intiaan.

  3. https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201703311052171849-china-india-tensions/
    ” China-India: Heightened Tensions Across the Himalayas
    © AP Photo/ Tsering Topgyal
    Columnists
    19:00 31.03.2017Get short URL
    Andrew Korybko
    564557

    Next week’s provocative visit of the Dalai Lama to the Chinese-contested town of Tawang is set to mark a low point in relations between New Delhi and Beijing.

    China and India, on paper at least, are very close partners. Both Asian Giants are members of BRICS, and the latter in poised to officially enter the SCO later this year. Trade between the two is growing, and most outside observers agree that the stability of the Indo-Pacific Century will largely hinge on the state of relations between Beijing and New Delhi. It’s in Eurasia’s best interests for China and India to deepen their existing institutional partnerships and expand them to new domains, yet this isn’t what’s actually happening.

    … ”

Kommentoi