Simplifying Psychology

[joe1776]

I gave you a cause. Humans are primates whose psychology is based on pack bonding.

That isn't a cause. Causes are linked to specific effects (specific acts of human behavior).

What you're offering is a general theory based on an analogy. I don't think the analogy is useful because we are a unique species of animal. Our packs aggressively attack other packs of our own species.

But, even if I'm wrong your counter-argument is irrelevant to the argument I put forth in the OP.

 

[joe1776]

Arrogance is a dominance strategy.
Wrath is an emotional response to dislike, which may or may not have dominance as a factor.
Likewise, greed may or may not have a dominance factor to it.
And again, envy may or may not have a dominance factor to it.

We don't need a dominance strategy unless we are competitive.

We wouldn't need to compete if we didn't need to prove ourselves superior to others.

And, as I wrote in the OP, it is the unconscious need to feel superior to others that drives arrogant behavior.

 

[joe1776]

"Jargon" isn't necessarily a negative, since the jargon "telephone" and "cellphone" have proven to be pretty popular with the masses.

MacMillan Dictionary for JARGON: special words and phrases that are only understood by people who do the same kind of work

You can be arrogant and greedy at the same time, without the two being conflated as the same

I didn't say they were the same: Arrogance (the cause) Greed (the effect.) But arrogant people can be greedy, manipulative, rude and exhibit several other symptoms of arrogance at the same time.

Not all people who envy want to be envied themselves.

I didn't claim that ALL people who envy want to be envied. But, do you think it likely that a girl who envies Taylor Swift doesn't want adoring fans envying her?

Is a infertile woman who envies a mother arrogant?

No. Arrogance isn't the only cause of envy but envy is a common symptom of arrogance.

Yes, wrath has many causes. Not all of them "credibly explained with arrogance as the cause." Would you be angry if someone attacked your wife? children? Would you be arrogant for being angry?

You're right. Wrath can have other causes but arrogance that causes wrath is likely to result in immoral behavior.

Maybe it isn't in your book, but it is in many people's book. Because it's not in your book doesn't mean it's not a human misbehavior (not necessarily with arrogance at its root).

You're welcome to your opinion, of course. But prudery is one of the effects caused by arrogance (My morals are far superior to your morals!). I don't regard prudes as morally superior, so their opinions are of no interest to me. I don't recognize them as moral authorities.

 

[Howard Is]

That isn't a cause. Causes are linked to specific effects (specific acts of human behavior).

Sociobiology - the biological basis of social behaviour.

Isn’t social behaviour what you are talking about ?

How can genetically coded behaviours not be a cause ?

What you're offering is a general theory based on an analogy. I don't think the analogy is useful because we are a unique species of animal. Our packs aggressively attack other packs of our own species.

That is standard primate behaviour, and exactly the kind of behaviour I am referring to.

But, even if I'm wrong your counter-argument is irrelevant to the argument I put forth in the OP.

Not at all. You are making a case that these behaviours are the result of arrogance, and my reply is that arrogance is a more superficial effect of an underlying behaviour.

I think you have the cart before the horse, as shown in this quote from the OP...

Group pride, usually thought of as a virtue, is disguised arrogance.

I think arrogance is more the expression of group affiliation. That kind of arrogance anyway.

 

[crossfire]

We don't need a dominance strategy unless we are competitive.

We wouldn't need to compete if we didn't need to prove ourselves superior to others.

And, as I wrote in the OP, it is the unconscious need to feel superior to others that drives arrogant behavior.

Then you can just simplify it down even more to dominance hierarchies. I'm not sure Jordan Peterson's lobsters would agree, though. Their (mis)behaviour isn't counted as misbehavior, just as lobster mating behaviour. No need to evolve.

 

[Augustus]

A field that contains many errors, as you point out, cannot be trusted.

Someone who refers to a field when he believes it supports his point and then dismisses the entire field out of hand when it shows him to be wrong is being hypocritical and disingenuous.

Your bad-faith approach has been noted.

You made this bragging claim and then failed to comment on how group prejudice (out-group bias) causes aggression. In the 2,000 years of modern history, the wars have been caused primarily by racism, religious intolerance and nationalism and not from "resource scarcity." The most dangerous threat to the survival of our species is human aggression caused group prejudice.

That is a very naive argument. 99.9% of human evolution didn't happen in 'modern history'.

We are not 100% evolutionarily optimised for the fast changing and technologically mediated world of modernity. That doesn't mean that these things weren't useful for survival in the vastly different environment we developed.

We are glorified chimps.

How is this relevant to our discussion?

I guessed your reason for rejecting the idea that being wary of outsiders was beneficial for the survival of our forebears was going to be one of your 'global harmony' type arguments.

I was wrong though. It was actually even worse.

Dumb question. A precise answer is impossible. The killing of Hitler is only moral as a post-hoc hypothetical question.

You have to judge the lesser of 2 evils in real time in real time with incomplete information, not as a post-hoc hypothetical.

So, seeing as you claim morals are objective:

Without the benefit of hindsight, at what point would it have become moral and altruistic to sacrifice yourself to kill Hitler for the greater good?

This question is simply argumentative. Of course there are unbiased minds "....on any specific case."

Rational arguments please, not unsupported assertions of fact that go against science and all human experience.

Who is unbiased on whether or not it is moral to vandalise a lab that tests on animals?

It depends on your view of the value of protecting innocent defenceless animals compared to protecting people's legally mandated property rights. There is no objective way to rank these, it depends on culture, values, and individual cognitive processes.

Your talent in justifying the unjustifiable is noteworthy; but when Christians claim they are morally superior to atheists, it is obviously an arrogant claim that leads to the Sanctimonious Christian negative stereotype. I imagine fair-minded Christians are embarrassed by the claim.

Your inability to follow through on the consequences of your own logic is noted.

If you genuinely believe an unbeliever is going to hell, it is perfectly possible to try to change their mind out of a sense of altruism (this doesn't mean it is always altruistic, just that it may be).

Many people have risked their own lives and undergone great hardship because they see it as a moral duty to 'save' others. This demonstrates it isn't always simply posturing and virtue signalling, but a genuine commitment to helping others. Remember, you argue that intent is all that matters, not whether or not you are justified in your beliefs.

Your opinions are noted.

Your continued inability to make a rational case against them is noted

 

[joe1776]

Sociobiology - the biological basis of social behaviour.
Isn’t social behaviour what you are talking about ?
How can genetically coded behaviours not be a cause ?

if your argument that human groups are analogous to animal packs was sound, you wouldn't need to shift away to a discussion about the influence of genes.

That is standard primate behaviour, and exactly the kind of behaviour I am referring to.

It is NOT 'standard primate behavior." Animals packs rarely attack their own kind.

Not at all. You are making a case that these behaviours are the result of arrogance, and my reply is that arrogance is a more superficial effect of an underlying behaviour.

I think you have the cart before the horse, as shown in this quote from the OP...

I'd be interested in hearing any valid argument you have to support your claim.

 

[joe1776]

Someone who refers to a field when he believes it supports his point and then dismisses the entire field out of hand when it shows him to be wrong is being hypocritical and disingenuous.

Your bad-faith approach has been noted.

You mistake your opinions for valid arguments.

That is a very naive argument. 99.9% of human evolution didn't happen in 'modern history'.

But 99.9% of the semi-solid to solid evidence we have only happened in the last 2,000 years. The rest is Jello.

We are not 100% evolutionarily optimised for the fast changing and technologically mediated world of modernity. That doesn't mean that these things weren't useful for survival in the vastly different environment we developed.

What things?

We are glorified chimps.

Genetically, yes, that's true. What's your point? Are you claiming that studying chimps is more enlightening than studying humans if we want to learn about human behavior?

I guessed your reason for rejecting the idea that being wary of outsiders was beneficial for the survival of our forebears was going to be one of your 'global harmony' type arguments.

I was wrong though. It was actually even woorse

Please try to make arguments that are on-topic. Your opinions aren't arguments.

Without the benefit of hindsight, at what point would it have become moral and altruistic to sacrifice yourself to kill Hitler for the greater good?

The question was previously answered.

You're wrong. Hypothetical moral questions can be answered because moral situations can be imagined and our conscience (moral intuition) will judge them. We do it everyday.

Who is unbiased on whether or not it is moral to vandalise a lab that tests on animals?

Anyone who hasn't thought of the question before would be unbiased. A group of such people would comprise an unbiased jury.

It depends on your view of the value of protecting innocent defenceless animals compared to protecting people's legally mandated property rights. There is no objective way to rank these, it depends on culture, values, and individual cognitive processes.

No, you're mistaken. Conscience only requires all the relevant facts describing the act. Laws, like those governing property rights, are potential biases.

 

[Augustus]

You mistake your opinions for valid arguments.

You don't know what a valid argument is then.

You have referred to psychological science as evidence when it supports your point.
You dismissed the entire field of psychology as untrustworthy when it didn't.
Ergo, you are being hypocritical and disingenuous.

Feel free to refute this with a valid argument.

But 100% of the semi-solid to solid evidence we have only happened in the last 2,000 years. The rest is Jello.

Don't be silly. We have a lot more than 2000 years of evidence for evolution.

What things?

Bias against outgroups and its consequent behaviours.

Genetically, yes, that's true. What's your point? Are you claiming that studying chimps is more enlightening than studying humans if we want to learn about human behavior?

"We are not 100% evolutionarily optimised for the fast changing and technologically mediated world of modernity. That doesn't mean that these things weren't useful for survival in the vastly different environment we developed."

You're wrong. Hypothetical moral question can be answered because moral situations can be imagined and our conscience (moral intuition) will judge them. We do it everyday.

You seem to be making things up now.

I asked you how we should judge actions that are in the 'greater good' in real time because that is what we have to do in real life.

Most people would say that von Stauffenburg was morally correct in trying to assassinate Hitler in 1944 for the greater good, not merely as a post-hoc hypothetical, but based on the evidence he had at the time of the plot.

Most people would also say that it would be immoral to murder a 2 year old Hitler based on the evidence you would have had available in 1891. Without the benefit of foresight, you would simply be murdering a normal child.

So, at what point in history would it be moral to assassinate Hitler based on the evidence available to a would be assassin at the time?

Or do you think we cannot ever make 'greater good' decisions morally in real time?

Anyone who hasn't thought of the question before would be unbiased. A group of such people would comprise an unbiased jury.

Are you really that naive? You don't think preexisting personal and cultural attitudes towards animals would play any role in such a case?

Lots of juries have never thought about the specific question they get asked to judge, yet this doesn't mean they are free from bias. We cannot isolate ourselves from the totality of our experiences and preexisting values.

No, you're mistaken. Conscience only requires all the relevant facts describing the act. Laws, like those governing property rights are potential biases.

Travel around the world and see how differently animals are treated in different cultures. What happened to your universal conscience?

(Your continued inability to refute the numerous examples of misbehaviour caused by things other than arrogance is still noted btw )

 

[Augustus]

It is NOT 'standard primate behavior." Animals packs rarely attack their own kind.

Chimps do. They even 'torture' and cannibalise other chimps.


Nature of war: Chimps inherently violent; Study disproves theory that 'chimpanzee wars' are sparked by human influence
Of all of the world's species, humans and chimpanzees are some of the only to engage in coordinated attacks on other members of their same species. Jane Goodall was among the first to introduce the occurrence of lethal inter-community killings and since then primatologists and anthropologists have long debated the concept of warfare in this genus. Research theories have pointed to increased gains and benefits of killing off competitors and opening up increased access to key resources such as food or mates. In contrast, others have argued that warfare is a result of human impact on chimpanzees, such as habitat destruction or food provisioning, rather than adaptive strategies.

New research from an international coalition of ape researchers, published September 18 in the journal Nature, has shed new light on the subject, suggesting that human encroachment and interference is not, as previous researchers have claimed, an influential predictor of chimp-on-chimp aggression.


Nature of war: Chimps inherently violent; Study disproves theory that 'chimpanzee wars' are sparked by human influence

Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts
Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing. Two kinds of hypothesis have been proposed. Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates1–5. Alternatively, it could be a non-adaptive result of human impacts, such as habitat change or food provisioning6–9. To discriminate between these hypotheses we compiled information from 18 chimpanzee communities and 4 bonobo communities studied over five decades. Our data include 152 killings (n 5 58 observed, 41 inferred, and 53 suspected killings) by chimpanzees in 15 communities and one suspected killing by bonobos. We found that males were the most frequent attackers (92% of participants) and victims (73%);most killings (66%)involved intercommunity attacks; and attackers greatly outnumbered their victims (median 8:1 ratio). Variationin killing rateswas unrelated to measures of human impacts. Our results are compatible with previously proposed adaptive explanations for killing by chimpanzees,whereas the human impact hypothesis is not supported

Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts | Nature

 

[joe1776]

Chimps do. They even 'torture' and cannibalise other chimps.


Nature of war: Chimps inherently violent; Study disproves theory that 'chimpanzee wars' are sparked by human influence
Of all of the world's species, humans and chimpanzees are some of the only to engage in coordinated attacks on other members of their same species. Jane Goodall was among the first to introduce the occurrence of lethal inter-community killings and since then primatologists and anthropologists have long debated the concept of warfare in this genus. Research theories have pointed to increased gains and benefits of killing off competitors and opening up increased access to key resources such as food or mates. In contrast, others have argued that warfare is a result of human impact on chimpanzees, such as habitat destruction or food provisioning, rather than adaptive strategies.

New research from an international coalition of ape researchers, published September 18 in the journal Nature, has shed new light on the subject, suggesting that human encroachment and interference is not, as previous researchers have claimed, an influential predictor of chimp-on-chimp aggression.


Nature of war: Chimps inherently violent; Study disproves theory that 'chimpanzee wars' are sparked by human influence

Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts
Observations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) provide valuable comparative data for understanding the significance of conspecific killing. Two kinds of hypothesis have been proposed. Lethal violence is sometimes concluded to be the result of adaptive strategies, such that killers ultimately gain fitness benefits by increasing their access to resources such as food or mates1–5. Alternatively, it could be a non-adaptive result of human impacts, such as habitat change or food provisioning6–9. To discriminate between these hypotheses we compiled information from 18 chimpanzee communities and 4 bonobo communities studied over five decades. Our data include 152 killings (n 5 58 observed, 41 inferred, and 53 suspected killings) by chimpanzees in 15 communities and one suspected killing by bonobos. We found that males were the most frequent attackers (92% of participants) and victims (73%);most killings (66%)involved intercommunity attacks; and attackers greatly outnumbered their victims (median 8:1 ratio). Variationin killing rateswas unrelated to measures of human impacts. Our results are compatible with previously proposed adaptive explanations for killing by chimpanzees,whereas the human impact hypothesis is not supported

Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts | Nature

You do it so frequently that I have to assume that you aren't aware that pointing out exceptions does not logically contradict general statements.

 

[Augustus]

You do it so frequently that I have to assume that you aren't aware that pointing out exceptions does not logically contradict general statements.

Do you ever fail to miss the point?

The point: it is standard behaviour in chimps, our closest animal relative. Hence that statement "Chimps do", followed by articles about chimps.

 

[joe1776]

Do you ever fail to miss the point?

The point: it is standard behaviour in chimps, our closest animal relative. Hence that statement "Chimps do", followed by articles about chimps.

Yes, but my general statement was a counter to another poster's argument and yours was not on point and didn't contradict what I wrote.

But since you brought it up: Why are scientists interested in studying chimp behavior over several years? How does the simple fact that chimps are our "closest animal relative" lead anyone to suspect this study is useful information and not simply trivia that has no useful purpose?

 

[Augustus]

Yes, but my general statement was a counter to another poster's argument and yours was not on point and didn't contradict what I wrote.

You really do love a pedantic quibble that continually misses the point, don't you

But since you brought it up: Why are scientists interested in studying chimp behavior over several years? How does the simple fact that chimps are our "closest animal relative" lead anyone to suspect this study is useful information and not simply trivia that has no useful purpose?

Because studying primate behaviour can help us to understand primate behaviour. What else?

You said that there was no way it made evolutionary sense for humans to display outgroup bias, yet we see exactly that behaviour in our closest relatives (which supports the mountains of evidence that show it to be present in our species also).

It's perfectly obvious why it makes evolutionary sense to both species. Why is it as instinctive and adaptive in one species yet the maladaptive offshoot of personal failing in the other? That makes no sense whatsoever (remember the last 2000 years is not very significant to our evolutionary history).

Or perhaps it is merely 'disguised arrogance' in chimps and bonobos too?

Several robust patterns emerge from these data. Killing was most common in eastern chimpanzees and least common among bonobos. Among chimpanzees, killings increased with more males and higher population density, whereas none of the three human impact variables had an obvious effect.Male chimpanzees killed more often thanfemales, and killed mainly male victims; attackers mostfrequently killed unweaned infants; victims were mainly members of other communities (and thus unlikely to be close kin); and intercommunity killings typically occurred when attackers had an overwhelming numerical advantage. The most important predictors of violence were thus variables related to adaptive strategies: species; age–sex class of attackers and victims; community membership; numerical asymmetries; and demography.We conclude that patterns of lethal aggression in Pan show little correlation with human impacts, but are instead better explained by the adaptive hypothesis that killing is a means to eliminate rivals when the costs of killing are low.

Why is it so absurd to you that social animals that depend on their group for survival, and may face existential threats from other groups, would develop tendencies towards prosocial behaviour within the group, and suspicion towards those outside the group?


Anyway:

Have you any valid arguments as to why it isn't hypocritical to cherry pick psychological science when you think it supports you, yet dismiss the entire field when it doesn't?

Do you believe it is possible to cause harm for the greater good without foresight and perfect knowledge? If so, when would it have been ethical to kill Hitler?

Do you really think preexisting personal and cultural attitudes towards animals would play any role in deciding the morality of vandalism against an animal testing lab?

 

[joe1776]

You really do love a pedantic quibble that continually misses the point, don't you

Posts like this seem intended to annoy me rather than debate. Please try to rise above those impulses because otherwise I enjoy our debates.

Because studying primate behaviour can help us to understand primate behaviour. What else?

Well, obviously because biologists and psychologists are supposed to be trying to understand human behavior.

You said that there was no way it made evolutionary sense for humans to display outgroup bias, yet we see exactly that behaviour in our closest relatives (which supports the mountains of evidence that show it to be present in our species also).

Your claim of "mountains of evidence to support your in-group/out-group theories is false. But even if it were true, that's no reason to expect that studying chimp behavior will be more enlightening than spending the same time and money on studying human behavior.

It's perfectly obvious why it makes evolutionary sense to both species.

In internet debate, when posters write that their claims are obvious or clear, there's a 1.07% chance that they actually are.

Why is it as instinctive and adaptive in one species yet the maladaptive offshoot of personal failing in the other?

Since our species is at the top of the food chain, and we ourselves represent a threat to our own survival, there logically must be adaptive differences between us and the other animals.

Why doesn't it make sense to you that our bad instincts are a threat to our survival? The intuitive judgments of conscience, the only moral authority we have, seems to be well-aligned with our survival.

Have you any valid arguments as to why it isn't hypocritical to cherry pick psychological science when you think it supports you, yet dismiss the entire field when it doesn't?

Yes, there's a perfectly valid argument. The researchers don't agree with each other. So, I favor the theories that make sense to me.

For example, you don't think much of my theory of a universal conscience. But the social scientists at Harvard designed the online Moral Sense Test with exactly that theory in mind.

...Over the past twenty years, there has been growing evidence for a universally shared moral faculty based on findings in evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, anthropology, economics, linguistics, and neurobiology....

Edge: THE MORAL SENSE TEST

 

[Howard Is]

Your claim of "mountains of evidence to support your in-group/out-group theories is false. But even if it were true, that's no reason to expect that studying chimp behavior will be more enlightening than spending the same time and money on studying human behavior.

That shows an appalling lack of understanding.

Why doesn't it make sense to you that our bad instincts are a threat to our survival? The intuitive judgments of conscience, the only moral authority we have, seems to be well-aligned with our survival.

Why doesn’t it make sense to you that the same instincts in a primate band, or for that matter a village, may not work out so well in the modern environment ?

The crazy thing is, I agree that our ‘instincts’ are now a threat to our survival.
That is one of the take-homes of studying sociobiology.

It’s like you are so close to getting it, but you are so infatuated with your notion of ‘arrogance’ that you won’t look at the real data.

Which is preciously ironic.

 

[joe1776]

That shows an appalling lack of understanding.

Why doesn’t it make sense to you that the same instincts in a primate band, or for that matter a village, may not work out so well in the modern environment ?

The crazy thing is, I agree that our ‘instincts’ are now a threat to our survival.
That is one of the take-homes of studying sociobiology.

It’s like you are so close to getting it, but you are so infatuated with your notion of ‘arrogance’ that you won’t look at the real data.

Which is preciously ironic.

Your post offers negative opinions of me and my argument but nothing in the way of counter-argument. It's not debate.

 

[Howard Is]

Your post offers negative opinions of me and my argument but nothing in the way of counter-argument.

You say that no matter what anyone says.

 

[Augustus]

Your claim of "mountains of evidence to support your in-group/out-group theories is false. But even if it were true, that's no reason to expect that studying chimp behavior will be more enlightening than spending the same time and money on studying human behavior.

It's hardly 'my' theory, given it is the overwhelming scientific consensus view.

And if we can observe it in our day to day lives, see it recorded in history across diverse cultures and this is supported by dozens if not hundreds of scientific papers, I'd say mountains of evidence is correct.

Who says studying chimps is more enlightening though? It is another piece of the jigsaw when added to the mountains of evidence on humans.

Remember it was in response to your absolute certainty that it could not be evolutionarily rational to promote prosocial behaviour in the group and suspicion of those outside the group and it could only be explained as a personal failing in the individual. Clearly nature disagrees with you.

In internet debate, when posters write that their claims are obvious or clear, there's a 1.07% chance that they actually are.

When their claim is also supported by mountains of evidence, and the best argument given against it is "everyone is wrong except me and all the science is bogus", I'd probably go just a teensy little bit higher than that

Since our species is at the top of the food chain, and we ourselves represent a threat to our own survival, there logically must be adaptive differences between us and the other animals.

But there also must, logically, be similarities too.

Why doesn't it make sense to you that our bad instincts are a threat to our survival?

It may be that they are in modernity, but we are not perfectly adapted to the complex and fast changing technologically mediated environment in which we live in. We change our environment faster than we adapt to it. Much of our evolved cognition still remains stuck in a bygone era.

Yes, there's a perfectly valid argument. The researchers don't agree with each other. So, I favor the theories that make sense to me.

That still doesn't justify citing psychological science as evidence if you believe the entire filed is bogus. It is intellectually dishonest to knowingly present bogus information just because you agree with it.

You should simply make your case and admit there is no scientific evidence that supports it, but you don't do that.

Can you find any scholars who argue against the idea we treat ingroup and outgroup members differently btw? You have never presented any that I can remember.

For example, you don't think much of my theory of a universal conscience. But the social scientists at Harvard designed the online Moral Sense Test with exactly that theory in mind.

...Over the past twenty years, there has been growing evidence for a universally shared moral faculty based on findings in evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, anthropology, economics, linguistics, and neurobiology....

Edge: THE MORAL SENSE TEST

But you said the entire field of psychology is without merit, so that is not evidence, and they are not scientists.

And again, the scientists who have written on intuitive morality all fundamentally disagree with you. I have acknowledged there may be some common features, yet you are claiming that there is an objective moral position on all issues that we can arrive at objectively, independent of culture and personal experience. Is there any evidence to support this view, or do we just have to take your word for it?


Why do you keep avoiding these questions btw?


Do you believe it is possible to ethically cause harm for the greater good without foresight and perfect knowledge (your perfect universal morality theory requires that you should be able to)? If so, when would it have been ethical to kill Hitler?

Do you really think preexisting personal and cultural attitudes towards animals wouldn't play any role in deciding the morality of vandalism against an animal testing lab?

 

[joe1776]

It's hardly 'my' theory, given it is the overwhelming scientific consensus view.

And if we can observe it in our day to day lives, see it recorded in history across diverse cultures and this is supported by dozens if not hundreds of scientific papers, I'd say mountains of evidence is correct.

You're making an outrageous claim you can't possibly support. I don't understand why you think such claims would be persuasive to intelligent, unbiased minds.

Who says studying chimps is more enlightening though? It is another piece of the jigsaw when added to the mountains of evidence on humans.

If studying chimp behavior doesn't enlighten us somehow, there's no justifiable reason to spend the time and money to do it.

Remember it was in response to your absolute certainty that it could not be evolutionarily rational to promote prosocial behaviour in the group and suspicion of those outside the group and it could only be explained as a personal failing in the individual. Clearly nature disagrees with you.

You can't seem to hold my positions in mind. So, that explains why your counter-arguments don't make much sense.

I asked you to explain how BOTH group prejudice (in-group bias) and its ever-present companion group prejudice (out-group bias) which causes aggression can be advantageous to our survival. You can't intelligently answer the question.

I reason that group prejudice (Our group is superior to their group!) which has been the chief cause of war, is the chief threat to the the survival of our species.

But there also must, logically, be similarities too.

Of course but so what? Why does it matter?

That still doesn't justify citing psychological science as evidence if you believe the entire filed is bogus. It is intellectually dishonest to knowingly present bogus information just because you agree with it.

I don't believe the entire field is bogus. I believe the research generally can't be trusted and that includes some that support my theory. For example, I don't think the Moral Sense Test is well-designed even though its results are so-far supporting my theory.

Can you find any scholars who argue against the idea we treat ingroup and outgroup members differently btw? You have never presented any that I can remember.

Who would argue against that? I don't. But theories should explain something. I scoff at the in-group, out-group theory being called a theory because just pinning new labels on group pride and group prejudice doesn't explain anything we didn't already know.

If I'm wrong about that, you should be able to explain what the theory explains that we didn't already know.

But you said the entire field of psychology is without merit, so that is not evidence, and they are not scientists.

Never said that.

And again, the scientists who have written on intuitive morality all fundamentally disagree with you.

Not true. Most agree with me on the only fundamental issue: moral judgments are the product of intuition and not reason.

I have acknowledged there may be some common features, yet you are claiming that there is an objective moral position on all issues that we can arrive at objectively, independent of culture and personal experience. Is there any evidence to support this view, or do we just have to take your word for it?

If you mean scientific evidence, no. But the unbiased jury concept has been in use world-wide for centuries. My position is based on that concept.

Do you believe it is possible to ethically cause harm for the greater good without foresight and perfect knowledge (your perfect universal morality theory requires that you should be able to)? If so, when would it have been ethical to kill Hitler?

Your first question placed the year at 1937. I answered your question. Since then you keep changing the question -- which seems irrelevant in our discussion.

Essentially, killing Hitler would be morally justified once it is realized with little doubt that he is a great threat to humanity. That realization would vary with the individual. With the benefit of hindsight, I think Von Stauffenberg's attempt was morally justified.

Do you really think preexisting personal and cultural attitudes towards animals wouldn't play any role in deciding the morality of vandalism against an animal testing lab?

We would need all the facts in a specific case in order to judge. Preexisting attitudes might or might not be biases.