Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA08290 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 14 May 2000 23:16:11 +0100 Message-ID: <391EE00A.E87E0EF1@mediaone.net> Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 18:19:06 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Abortion views and face time References: <391C3804.B4418043@mediaone.net> <391D986C.3E571A1F@pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Bill Spight wrote:
> Dear Chuck,
>
> > But here's the problem: when I get up to the present and talk about
> > current moral dilemmas, they insist that current morality exists by
> > itself and motivates behavior. For example they insist that Catholic
> > religion qua religion motivates the abortion issue or Northern Ireland.
> > BTW, I have some pretty solid evidence that the abortion wars are being
> > moved by 1 major factor, the amount of face time each side wants to
> > invest in children.
>
> "Wants to"? How do you figure that?
Just for the record - I have offered a recantation on my hypothesis. But in
any event, why are you puzzled by "wants to". People make decisions as to
whether they want to give their children more or less of their time. Am I
leaving something out here?
>
>
> >It certainly seems likely that face time is in part a function of
> family size. It also seems unlikely that it would be
> proportional. It is questionable whether the desire for face time
> is an increasing function of family size. In fact, a large family
> might lead to a desire for solitude. ;-)
>
Face time in a large family includes not only face time with parents, but the
surrogate parents in the family in terms of the older siblings. Whatever the
case, the total absolute face time parents invest is much larger than smaller
families.
>
> > Put face time on a contiuum, and the more face time
> > is associated with more agreement with anti-abortion sentiment. Choice
> > of one side or another in the contiuum results in a very different set
> > of economic options, and it is the resulting economic interests that
> > clash. (overtime, apartment rental, reciprocal arrangements on baby
> > sitting, time devoted to work and career, economic means which in turn
> > decides neighborhoods one can live in AND education for the kids, taxes,
> > etc. etc. - it's very pervasive).
>
> To be sure, there are economic penalties in modern urban society
> for large families, in general. What does this have to do with
> face time?
It's face time that takes away from the energy that could otherwise be used to
advance in status.
> Are you claiming that economics
> is the one clashing factor?
I WAS, but I am recanting on that - or at least the particular economic
factors I mentioned as soley responsible. See my earlier post.
> > The anti-abortion side has the
> > quixotic hope that they can force family size up AND people's positive
> > feelings towards their children. (If you want to disagree on this list,
> > please try to express it in a different posting than the main subject I
> > am presenting.)
> >
>
> I do not disagree, but I wonder where you get the evidence for
> your claim about the quixotic hopes of the anti-abortionists.
Interviews with activists and logical deductions. First, they are quite
conscious of how the imbalance in family size has a negative effect on those
with larger families. Second, they are contemptuous of those with no children.
> In what you say so far, you seem to claim a statistical
> correlation between family size (as an indicator of face time)
> and views on abortion in Northern Ireland. Perhaps you have other
> indicators of face time. You also seem to claim that this
> correlation reveals a causal relationship, and that the supposed
> causal relationship provided by religious morality does not apply
> or is insufficient.
>
As I said, I want to modify my ideas -- and it may take quite some time.
>
> However, there is an obvious relation between family size (and
> concommitant face time) and religion in Northern Ireland. A
> parsimonious explanation is that religion explains both family
> size (and face time) and attitudes towards abortion. If that is
> the position of the students, they are being good scientists and
> adhering to Occam's Razor.
I don't know any scientist who would claim that correlation is proof. My
assumption that beliefs (in morality or anything else) are adaptations to
environments is pretty solid given that beliefs ALWAYS change when the
environment changes. The latter always precedes the former.
>
> To disentangle this question, you need more than the bald
> correlation between your index of face time and abortion views.
>
I agree.
===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 14 2000 - 23:16:35 BST