Website Visitor Statisticsnikon coolpix digital camera

Saturday, 15 January 2011

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)

9 comments:

jim 16 January 2011 at 23:58  

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.

IC1MALE 17 January 2011 at 12:10  

There is no choice - it is nature.

Muticulturalism goes against every natural instinct.

jim 17 January 2011 at 23:11  

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?

IC1MALE 17 January 2011 at 23:37  

Do I advocate them all? What an idiotic question.

Interesting you should mention home invasions - we all know which 'tribe' have a natural inclination to commit those crimes don't we?

Of course we overide instictive behaviours that's the whole point!

Some 'clans' 'racial groups' have trouble doing this though don't they?

How long have negroes been out of Africa, yet a large proportion of them still act as though they are still there.

'Race is a social construct' is what you are saying...don't think so, articles such as this prove it.

The Europeans had to trust each other to survive the ice age, unfortunately this is now a evolutionary disadvantage due to the large numbers of more hostile tribes living amongst us.

jim 18 January 2011 at 00:06  

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.

IC1MALE 18 January 2011 at 10:56  

The article is about Oxytocin, you are speaking as if all groups of humans (races) act the same, which they obviously don't, but that doesn't fit in with multiculturalism.

I was waiting for you to come out with 'racism', how is feeling a bond with your own group (Europeans) and being protective towards them (as the article discusses) and being more comfortable around them, racism?

It isn't of course, but people like you support multiculturalism, and call anyone who objects to being submerged in hordes of South Asians and Africans 'racist', what a farce!

I'm guessing your a big fan of Trotsky and live in a white suburb?

I actually grew up in a muticultural area and have saw first hand what a disaser the 'experiment' is, articles like this give it (my argument) scientific credence.

You also say 'that's how all societies work' as if Liberia and Norway are the same, what a load of liberal rubbish!

A society is the 'people' who inhabit it, third world population equals third world society.

You might be interested to click the Nelson Mandela link on the right of my blog, you might be surprised to see him singing 'kill the whites', people are waking up 'JIM' they have the internet, when are you going to take the blinkers off?

jim 19 January 2011 at 00:54  

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.)

jim 19 January 2011 at 00:55  

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.

IC1MALE 19 January 2011 at 11:43  

Jim - I said 'Trotskyist' for two reasons; firstly you pulled out the racist card, that is a classic far left strategy in argument, as is the guilt inferer by bringing in murder/rape/wife beating - as if to suggest my stance condones such acts.

If you are a biologist you should know about genetics, racial groups are different, not just medically i.e sickle cell anemia - cystic fibrosis but also in behaviour i.e the negro propensity for violent crime - the European trait to explore and do things just to see if they can be done, such as climbing mount everest and landing on the moon.

You also suggest the clan mentality is foolish why?

If the world is to be multicultural (as you suggest) then from a biological view Europeans (recessive genes) are destined for extinction. Africa will still be 99% African, Asia will be 99% Asian, yet European societies will dissapear, replaced by coffee coloured mongrels, do you think this is right, or do Europeans deserve a future too?

Racism and tribalism are not the same, this is another reason why I contend you have a far left agenda.

Racism is hating someone from a different group, I do not hate them, I do however believe that my racial group has a right to existance and that being swamped by third world Africans/Asians is indeed genocide (the destruction of a genetic group).

You say tribalism is more likely in the poor and lower educated, what about Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler (philosophers), Wernher Von Brown (Rocket pioneer), Oswald Mosely (Aristocrat and war hero), Enoch Powell (who could speak six languages and was a professor of Greek at 26)and William Pierce (Physicist) all of them would disagree with you, yet they were clearly not poor or uneducated.

Saying that white people who care about the future of their sub species/race are usually poor, or thick, is another old far leftist argument killer, and it is untrue.

What you call 'education' in this regard I call left wing propaganda/Marxist brainwashing, it has worked well on a mass scale up to now I admit that, the left has used the race card or mentioned the holocaust since 1945 if anyone has dared criticise it.

You can't seem to differenciate between 'racism' (irrational hatred) and feeling a kindred within your own group i.e nationalism (perfectly natural).

You talk about us being in the mud in Africa, negroes are in that state in 2011...see Haiti - Zimbabwe - Detroit, it doesn't matter where in the world they are, whatever education/opportunities they are given, the same behaviours occur (because they have evolved separately).

You may think that multiculturalism is beneficial, not in my experience, I see whites scared in their own city because Africans are intimidating and loud in nature, South Asians still have their clan mentality intact and intimidate other groups (namely whites) in large 'clans', how is this beneficial?

You say the internet is breaking down the 'clan mentality' I contend the opposite, Europeans are seeing the perils of muticulturalism in the large number of video's which show whites being attacked (for no reason) by violent negroes and Arabs.

I see people waking up form the 'education' you mention and becoming informed as to the importance of recognising the dangers.

As Europeans become more of a minority on this planet and in their OWN societies, the 'clan' mentality (which is good and neccessary) is reemerging, the resurgence in nationalist parties in Europe illustrates this.

I ask you to watch this video by a honest (an articulate) black lady

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHr0LIkgFvE

  © Blogger template 'Isolation' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP  

My Zimbio