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?