Emotions and higher social order

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Emotions and higher social order

Postby Athena on July 8th, 2017, 12:23 pm 

Some research claims that our line of human survived while others did not because of our superior social organization. I think what emotions have to do with our social organization is worth our consideration.

http://criticalrealismnetwork.org/2017/ ... ternative/

In the American sociology of emotion, interpretivism is the reigning paradigm. Emotions are socially constructed and to be interpreted through the language used to express them. This paradigm works fairly well in enhancing our understanding of people’s understanding of emotion, if that’s what your epistemic aim is. The critical realist would rather know what emotion is, why it exists, and how it works. If interpretivism is the theoretical orthodoxy in the sociology of emotion, then positivism is, ironically, the heterodoxic revolt in this subdisciplinary domain. For example, Kemper (2011) is probably the most unapologetic positivist among sociologists of emotion. His theoretical system presents a bunch of covering laws about the relationship between power-/status- claimsmaking and biophysiological emotional pain or pleasure. As in other positivisms of this sort, constant conjunctions abound without any depth realism, for example, conceptualizing how multiple mechanisms interact in open systems.


This is the research I had in mind developing our social order and improving our survival.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... -88972191/

According to a study published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the answer is grandmothers. “Grandmothering was the initial step toward making us who we are,” says senior author Kristen Hawkes, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. In 1997 Hawkes proposed the “grandmother hypothesis,” a theory that explains menopause by citing the under-appreciated evolutionary value of grandmothering. Hawkes says that grandmothering helped us to develop “a whole array of social capacities that are then the foundation for the evolution of other distinctly human traits, including pair bonding, bigger brains, learning new skills and our tendency for cooperation.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... GILO1Rq.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby Athena on July 13th, 2017, 11:27 am 

http://www2.fiu.edu/~grenierg/chapter3.htm

5. The socialization process is also a force for continuity within societies.� Through this process the members of a society acquire the belief that their culture is a precious resource and worth preserving.


I like this web site and this statement stood out to me because when we had education for democracy there was so much focus on human dignity and this stress on human dignity resulted in believing we had a culture that was worth defending in wars. Important to this concept of human dignity and our democracy being superior, was the notion that we shared public lands and utilities and benefits of our society. Social Security and the Older Americans Act as well as programs for children, are expressions of our concern for the well being of all, dignity and equal opportunity. That is we believed not only in individualism but also in a weness. United we stand.

Being influenced by the patriotism of the second world war that involved my parents, and the school books published and used during the second world war and following the war, I have a love for the culture we defended, and I don't think that culture is what we have today. I think in some ways our culture has improved and in some ways it is in trouble.
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby Athena on July 16th, 2017, 11:32 am 

What is a higher social order? In the beginning of this thread I was thinking about our evolution and the different human lines and what our social organization had to do with us winning the competition. The notion being our evolved ability to work together gave us an advantage. But obviously, we are as divided as we are united when it comes to notions of the woman's role in society and family values. These are emotional subjects and there is a question about what is the higher social order. Was women's liberation a step forward? What about the Trump phenomena?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/books/review/divided-we-stand-marjorie-j-spruill.html

Among feminists, Donald Trump’s election has prompted unprecedented soul-searching about What Went Wrong. The revelation that a majority of white women helped put Trump over the top cut especially deep. The initial mystery — how could women vote for that man? — gave way to betrayal: How could they do this to other women? Then, after some Kübler-Ross stages of grief, and a few million pink pussy hats, came the questions: How to harness the euphoric rage of the record-breaking women’s marches? How to make tangible progress, not merely prevent further losses?


What is progress?
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby wolfhnd on July 16th, 2017, 12:17 pm 

Nice topic to discuss at the moment I'm to busy to do so will try to read the links later and comment.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4172
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby wolfhnd on July 16th, 2017, 3:57 pm 

Well I read a bit of it and found a couple problems. First emotions are not socially constructed anymore than gender is. Humans are apes and evolution didn't stop below the neck. The interplay between physical and cultural evolution is complex and most of our evolution is buried in prehistory.

Most of evolutionary psychology is speculative and supported by correlations at best. Post Modernism however has polluted most of the other social sciences to the point that even correlation from properly constructed research is missing. It is a frustrating environment to sort through and many of my friends refuse to call it science at all which pretty much shuts down discussions like this between anyone outside the field and the practitioners. By contrast for example the physics section of these forums are often the most active areas of science discussion because in some ways physics is neater and cleaner. It is hard to have these discussions with the unavoidable limits on reliable data. I would recommend Jordan Peterson's lecture on IQ to understand how out of sync popular opinion is with the scientific data.

As to the grandmother theory all I can say is that the evolutionists are rethinking group selection and downplaying it at the moment. It is one of the more inaccessible possibilities and I don't give it much consideration.

What is certain is that the brain does not physically develop properly in the absence of social interaction. There is much discussion of the "language instinct" so the experts do seem to agree that some physical structure is necessary for language to develop regardless of the social environment. It may be cliche to say neither nature or nurture but that appears to be the case.

As I have said else where emotions are the seeds from which cognition grows. It is a physiological process influenced by culture. The trap to avoid is assuming that theories devoid of experience should go untested. This isn't just a principal for intellectual argument but is the nature of life. The brains of all animals capable of even rudimentary cognition are constantly testing theory. Because of a need to process information independent of emotional (instinctual) influence humans are susceptible to creating a mental matrix that does not reflect reality. On the other hand it would be a mistake to think that evolved structures such as emotions are attuned to environmental conditions. All evolved structures lag reality because they are fixed under conditions that no longer exist.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4172
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby Sivad on July 17th, 2017, 2:30 am 

wolfhnd » July 16th, 2017, 12:57 pm wrote:Well I read a bit of it and found a couple problems. First emotions are not socially constructed anymore than gender is. Humans are apes and evolution didn't stop below the neck. The interplay between physical and cultural evolution is complex and most of our evolution is buried in prehistory.


So you're saying emotions and gender are socially constructed to some significant extent?
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby Athena on July 17th, 2017, 11:39 am 

wolfhnd » July 16th, 2017, 1:57 pm wrote:Well I read a bit of it and found a couple problems. First emotions are not socially constructed anymore than gender is. Humans are apes and evolution didn't stop below the neck. The interplay between physical and cultural evolution is complex and most of our evolution is buried in prehistory.

Most of evolutionary psychology is speculative and supported by correlations at best. Post Modernism however has polluted most of the other social sciences to the point that even correlation from properly constructed research is missing. It is a frustrating environment to sort through and many of my friends refuse to call it science at all which pretty much shuts down discussions like this between anyone outside the field and the practitioners. By contrast for example the physics section of these forums are often the most active areas of science discussion because in some ways physics is neater and cleaner. It is hard to have these discussions with the unavoidable limits on reliable data. I would recommend Jordan Peterson's lecture on IQ to understand how out of sync popular opinion is with the scientific data.

As to the grandmother theory all I can say is that the evolutionists are rethinking group selection and downplaying it at the moment. It is one of the more inaccessible possibilities and I don't give it much consideration.

What is certain is that the brain does not physically develop properly in the absence of social interaction. There is much discussion of the "language instinct" so the experts do seem to agree that some physical structure is necessary for language to develop regardless of the social environment. It may be cliche to say neither nature or nurture but that appears to be the case.

As I have said else where emotions are the seeds from which cognition grows. It is a physiological process influenced by culture. The trap to avoid is assuming that theories devoid of experience should go untested. This isn't just a principal for intellectual argument but is the nature of life. The brains of all animals capable of even rudimentary cognition are constantly testing theory. Because of a need to process information independent of emotional (instinctual) influence humans are susceptible to creating a mental matrix that does not reflect reality. On the other hand it would be a mistake to think that evolved structures such as emotions are attuned to environmental conditions. All evolved structures lag reality because they are fixed under conditions that no longer exist.



Thank you for your time and consideration of the subject. As for being overly imperialistic, it is unfortunate history is not considered as important as science. What is happening today reminds me of the Church and Scholasticism. Scholasticism depended on Aristotle and in the end, there was a backlash against Aristotle and Church controlled reasoning, opening the Age of Reason and intellectual growth. Today, I don't think we need more facts, but more wisdom and that need might become the backlash to imperialism.

Formally I am a gerontologist. That is the study of aging. Before we got so technological smart, we valued our elders for their greater knowledge and judgments based on having more knowledge. I must say my book learning held very little value compared to being old because knowing facts is not that useful without knowing the meaning of those facts. Our young are good at accumulating facts. In our later years, we realize the meaning of all those facts. From my educated point of view, few things are more exciting than how a large population of long lived people change society. Never before have there been so many long lived people and I see this as a great opportunity for humanity.

I find the grandmother theory completely plausible because I am a grandmother and realize there are important differences in being a grandmother. The further we are from raising our children, while still recognizing a special bond with them, the more rational we are about their care and if our group depends on the knowledge of the elders and defers to them, not only do we have the advantage of knowledge and experience and the mental development of a long life, but the security in who we are that we do not have when we are young. Physically life can get more challenging as we age, but psychologically life gets better when the elders are valued. I really want to say much more about the grandmother difference if there is interest.

So imagine animals running on instincts, perhaps learning from parents, but not contemplating the meaning of anything. Not reasoning and making choices based on reason, rather than on feeling. They are controlled by hormones and their position in the hierarchy. Now begin aging the members of the group and watch what happens.

There are some male and female differences and it has become popular to argue that these differences are not so much biological, but I don't think we would be arguing that if we did not have control of energy and machines making our lives easy. One of the important differences in chimps is the females take to learning from their mothers much better than the males, and this is an essential part of gaining knowledge versus brute force. That is the baboon on is not the path to higher intelligence but the chimp is, because of this difference in which one learns and which one does not. The organization of bonobos favors females, while the organization of chimps favors males. I think we have much to learn from studying animal behavior. When we come to our line, what was favored was a more female oriented social order. We don't just hunt (brute force), we cultivate the soil and we engage with each other better than other species (power of reason).
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby Athena on July 17th, 2017, 12:12 pm 

Sivad » July 17th, 2017, 12:30 am wrote:
wolfhnd » July 16th, 2017, 12:57 pm wrote:Well I read a bit of it and found a couple problems. First emotions are not socially constructed anymore than gender is. Humans are apes and evolution didn't stop below the neck. The interplay between physical and cultural evolution is complex and most of our evolution is buried in prehistory.


So you're saying emotions and gender are socially constructed to some significant extent?


I would agree with that. For this we need cross cultural studies and what we know is aggressive people (cultures) raise their children to be aggressive and that some cultures focus more on being cooperative, and this too begins with early child rearing.

Also in observing animals, we see leaders being groomed for leadership and lower ranking members being pushed out and prevented from having opportunity. Human studies also make it clear that nurture is just as important as nature, in determining how we feel about ourselves and others and how we behave. Our social position plays a role in how our we see ourselves and how others react to us, this is directly tied to our emotional state of being.
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby wolfhnd on July 17th, 2017, 12:49 pm 

This topic is worthy of more discussion than it is getting if for no other reason than because group selection needs to be sorted out.

Let me ask one question that I think helps define the problem. Is the survival of the species the highest moral objective or is morality ultimately about individual "salvation" as Christianity suggests? Ignore the traditional concept of the soul and replace it with "spiritual" fulfillment. I'm not stating the question as an either or because obviously they are inter dependent in some ways.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4172
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Emotions and higher social order

Postby Athena on July 18th, 2017, 9:49 am 

wolfhnd » July 17th, 2017, 10:49 am wrote:This topic is worthy of more discussion than it is getting if for no other reason than because group selection needs to be sorted out.

Let me ask one question that I think helps define the problem. Is the survival of the species the highest moral objective or is morality ultimately about individual "salvation" as Christianity suggests? Ignore the traditional concept of the soul and replace it with "spiritual" fulfillment. I'm not stating the question as an either or because obviously, they are inter dependent in some ways.


I am focusing on history at the moment and keep wondering how did very aggressive males come to rule over everyone else? Evidently, a big cause of this phenomenon was the spreading of Hinduism and notion that a man can be a god, resulting in the east having many male leaders who were worshiped as gods, and they did not have great human values. Also, trading seems to have been very important to the accumulation of wealth and power. Somewhere in here is the notion of private property. I don't know the exact role property rights, or the lack of them, played in the establishment of human hierarchies. I think it would be hard to get exacting information about how the notion of private property, goods carried by a caravan or on ships to be sold and also control of a plot of land, but the trading happened before there were cities. The development of trading seems to have lead to large cities and that leads to political control and a different value system.

I think the best way to understand humans is to study animal behavior. The book "The Science of Good and Evil" calls animals premoral because our morality comes out of animal sensitivity and behavior, but animals don't contemplate the reasoning of moral behavior. I think the difference between chimp (male dominant) and bonobo (female dominant) organization is important. Not all women who rise in politics advance programs for women and children but as more women have become political leaders, there has been an increase of programs for women and children with the result of more children surviving childhood. I think those who object to discussion of the difference between males and females hinder our ability to understand our behavior, and this study would include how hormones affect how we feel and behave.
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon



Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests