oxytocin - hormone of the clan
The far left aren't going to like this.
Every inner city school and college in England has posters up saying 'diversity is strength' and 'multiculturalism makes us stronger', science however tells us different.
Comically the far left have even suggested that nationalism and racial unity (when whites express it) is mentally deranged.
Their lies are falling apart at the seams!
H/T John de Nugent
Alternative right reports - European researchers have proven that the instigators of the grand multicultural enterprise are fighting against Nature. The New York Times reported on a Dutch study that scientifically determined ethnocentrism, the preference for one's own “in-group,” is natural, chemical, and biological.
The hormone oxytocin has been called “the cuddle hormone,” because the hypothalamus releases it during sexual intercourse, breastfeeding, and childbirth, among other times. This neuropeptide is known to create a sense of bonding with children, romance between adults, and trust within society. But new research has found oxytocin assures mankind extends sympathy along clearly delimited ethnic lines.
The New York Times describes “The Dark Side of Oxytocin, the Hormone of Love”:
The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in- group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism.
The finding is the result of extensive testing conducted by a team of Dutch psychologists led by Dr. Carsten K. W. De Dreu of the University of Amsterdam. Their paper, “Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism,”was published online just days ago. “Ethnocentrism is a very basic part of humans, and it’s not something we can change by education,” De Dreu concluded.
The team had Dutch men inhale a puff of oxytocin or placebo 40 minutes before engaging in a series of tests designed to measure their feelings toward in-group and out-group members, “us” and “them.” The psychologists asked them to respond by pressing a button when they saw a pair of names, finding the subjects who received the oxytocin responded more readily when that set included a Dutch name instead of an Arab or German one. The hesitation reflected an aversion to the out-group.
Read more
MR de Nugent versus Alan Colmes (Jewish radio host)
.jpg)
6 comments:
The fact that biology has produced an automatic tendency doesn't mean it's somehow holy. It does suggest that it should be taken into account. For example, we are biologically programmed to get cancer but that is no reason to not develop or use effective treatments. The "natural order" has clear downsides.
Same for clanish tendencies. Sure, they are there and often useful and fun - eg, supporting your local community or screaming for your team at the football - but are they are always necessary or always the best way? Clearly no and no.
It really depends on what your drivers are. If you rely on uninspected visceral feelings you'll find supporting the clan comes naturally but there are alternatives.
In fairly recent human times, some new cultural systems have been developed that regard all humans as fundamentally equal and attempt to widen the "tribe" to the whole of humanity, or even to partly include some other species. Use of these systems is not automatic; it requires education and the activity of higher brain centres. Despite some significant attractions of this new approach, for example, not having to kill or be killed by a member of another clan, uptake has been patchy to say the least. Also, automatic systems tend to take over at times of stress, for example, during natural disasters or when watching tv news shows.
It's a choice, both personally and culturally.
There is no choice - it is nature.
Muticulturalism goes against every natural instinct.
Ok, then: Murder, road rage, rape, home invasion, larceny, etc, etc, are all driven by natural instincts. Do you advocate them all?
There is a massive evolutionary advantage in having a large highly developed brain, the individual can actually override instinctive behaviours. Nematode worms can't override at all, dogs and monkeys can a bit, but humans do it brilliantly, given the right training and culture. It's definitely not 100% reliable, but it's wildly adaptive and has made humans an incredibly successful despite the big energy and oxygen needs of the large brain.
Take your pick: nematode worm or large brained mammal?
Not an idiotic question, it is a logical consequence of the argument you made.
You can't have it both ways, either natural instincts must be followed, or they are options. If you say natural instincts must be followed in regard to racism, then wife-beaters can surely claim natural instinct as a defence. It doesn't work like that in law, for obvious reasons. You are expected to control antisocial natural instincts or face sanctions.
That's how all societies work, by encouraging prosocial behaviours and sanctioning the antisocial.
You can't have it both ways.
I may have used the term racism a little loosely. I'm a biologist and animal behaviourist rather than a moral reformer, or something. I'm certainly not a Trotskyist - no idea where that came from. Maybe you could try to deal with the arguments I've made rather than straw manning.
Racism, xenopobia, tribalism, clanism, whatever, all refer to forms the same human tendency. I don't doubt it exists, never have, and I think it should be taken into account, exactly because it is a natural human tendency. It has been studied scientifically from numerous perspectives. The oxytocin result expands the knowledge in one particular nuance rather than produces a radical new understanding.
But to argue that something is good, desirable, or even unavoidable because it is a natural human propensity is just foolish. If that were the case, we should still all be squabbling around in the African mud, starving and dying, like we were half a million years ago. We evolved a higher brain that enables us to behave in a more adapted way than what the "automatic" lower brain produces.
Lower brain tendencies - including racism, aggression, overeating, etc - are always present in our decision making and they are more likely to take over in times of stress. Education and training weaken their effect. That's why these compulsive behaviours - like racism and overeating - are more likely in the poor, the uneducated and the stressed, aka "low socio-economic" groups. Perhaps de-stressing, education and economic development is a better solution than splitting the clans - it certainly has a lot of other benefits.
(BTW this is not something I just made up to support some ideology, there is a mass of scientific evidence that supports this view. If you're interested, I'd suggest Sapolsky's book "Why zebras don't get ulcers" as a great place to start, then move onto some of the cognitive psychology results in this area.)
Continued...
In any case, separating the clans (if that is the solution you espouse?) is a forlorn hope. The world is clearly heading in exactly the opposite direction, driven by powerful economic, social and personal forces, so you can give it up as a solution. You're banging your head against the wall - it's plainly not going to happen. Clan differences being continuously broken down and normalised by modern economic systems, media, the Internet, travel, etc. Whether you feel this is good or bad, it's happening and it's not going to stop. Kids everywhere are growing up in an increasingly internationalised Internet culture where the natural tendencies to clanism and fear of difference is loosing power daily.
For the record, I grew up in an area in Melbourne, Australia with a pronounced mix of nationalities. Sure, there was a little racism around - not much though, and generally down the bottom of the socio-economic ladder as per scientific expectations - but in general, it worked really well, and produced a much more interesting place to live than an ethnic monoculture.
Post a Comment