3 ms·

Just look at the people who are convinced they have to beat up their kids to discipline them because "I turned out fine".

steve_adams_86 2y ago
This is arguably a different mechanism. Propagation of personality seems to be based lest on acute, specific, traumatic events like physical abuse. We understand to some degree why hurt people hurt other people. It’s less clear why and how much we emulate our families in more subtle ways.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  > We understand to some degree why hurt people hurt other people By “understand”, you mean “have colloquial theories that we don’t bother trying to falsify”
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    There are cross-disciplinary, longitudinal, and meta-analysis studies which seem to support that when people experience adversity or various forms of trauma, they are far more likely than the general population to perpetuate the same or other harms upon others. It doesn’t strike me as colloquial at all. Psychology, neurology, and sociology each find this trend and various context-specific candidates for causal mechanisms.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      What are the best studies? There is evidence pointing against environmental unicausality. [0][1] Both these and the studies you mention will have trouble disentangling causality because nobody can run ethical experiments. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266717432300037X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266717432... [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6758596/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6758596/
      - steve_adams_86 2y ago
        Right, I agree. We’re at a point where there’s an intangible and perhaps subjective aspect of human experience (maybe it reduces to consciousness in general?) which we can’t really nail down firmly. I’ve preferred studies I’ve seen over the ones with contradict them (usually due to study design and the rigour behind them), but I’ll have to look at yours and reassess. I think I’ve also leaned towards environmental factors in part because it encourages more prosocial responses if your morality is inclined in that direction. That’s purely subjective, and while not colloquially driven, it isn’t scientific. I’ll have to think about it. I did feel science was more conclusively in the environmental spectrum of cause in this context, but you’ve got me wondering just how conclusive it could be beyond “seems statistically probable” while never being close to certain. Especially without unethical studies. I’ll dig up some studies I’ve liked over the years to compare with what you’ve got here.

steve_adams_86 2y ago

This is arguably a different mechanism. Propagation of personality seems to be based lest on acute, specific, traumatic events like physical abuse. We understand to some degree why hurt people hurt other people. It’s less clear why and how much we emulate our families in more subtle ways.

whimsicalism 2y ago
> We understand to some degree why hurt people hurt other people By “understand”, you mean “have colloquial theories that we don’t bother trying to falsify”
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  There are cross-disciplinary, longitudinal, and meta-analysis studies which seem to support that when people experience adversity or various forms of trauma, they are far more likely than the general population to perpetuate the same or other harms upon others. It doesn’t strike me as colloquial at all. Psychology, neurology, and sociology each find this trend and various context-specific candidates for causal mechanisms.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    What are the best studies? There is evidence pointing against environmental unicausality. [0][1] Both these and the studies you mention will have trouble disentangling causality because nobody can run ethical experiments. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266717432300037X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266717432... [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6758596/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6758596/
    - steve_adams_86 2y ago
      Right, I agree. We’re at a point where there’s an intangible and perhaps subjective aspect of human experience (maybe it reduces to consciousness in general?) which we can’t really nail down firmly. I’ve preferred studies I’ve seen over the ones with contradict them (usually due to study design and the rigour behind them), but I’ll have to look at yours and reassess. I think I’ve also leaned towards environmental factors in part because it encourages more prosocial responses if your morality is inclined in that direction. That’s purely subjective, and while not colloquially driven, it isn’t scientific. I’ll have to think about it. I did feel science was more conclusively in the environmental spectrum of cause in this context, but you’ve got me wondering just how conclusive it could be beyond “seems statistically probable” while never being close to certain. Especially without unethical studies. I’ll dig up some studies I’ve liked over the years to compare with what you’ve got here.