Too much information bro - take it to confession! : )

Things can be wrong for lots of different reasons. Things that are ‘right’ in most circumstances can be ‘wrong’ in others. And of course, I don’t call people who engage in SGSS ‘evil’.

I just think the behaviour is contrary to how our bodies are designed, and that seems logical whether you think we’ve been designed by God+nothing, God+evolution, Evolution+god or evolution+Nothing… And yes, I’m well aware that your nose isn’t ‘designed’ to be picked either. But again, the wrongness or rightness of ‘nose-picking’ is tied up not only with the design of nose and of finger, but also with our relationship to others, self, etc., etc. There ARE wrong ways to picketh the noseth. I used to be (OK still am!) quite a picker, myself, and would often get nose-bleeds… This would be one of many shades, hues and degrees of ‘wrongness’. It makes me an evil-dirty-nose-picker. But this is different from being an evil child pornographer. And so it engaging in SGSS. I think it’s wrong - but wrong in a very different way to which other things are wrong.

Things aren’t wrong ‘just because they are dammit’. They’re wrong in the sense of breaking relationship between other, self, creation/nature, etc.

Anything for science eh! : )

Dale - how am I thinking about these things - well the word ‘wrong’ seems to be the problem in that does it mean ‘bad, evil, hurtful to others, immoral…?’ or something like ‘not socially acceptable,’or ‘not correct/abnormal’ or ‘an illness’. If my son picked his nose, I’d say don’t do that, you don’t stick your finger in there, even if you do enjoy it. If he just couldnt stop despite attempts to do so and just couldnt feel happy without frequent nose picking, and went about his nose picking in the privacy of his own room and always washed his hands afterwards and disposed of the bogies, and even if this behaviour was symptom of an underlying pyschological issue, at worst I would say he had some sort of problem/illness. At no point would I say he had been immoral or evil. So in many respects I’d see SSGS in much the same way. In saying that I appreciate that comparisions to sky diving and nose picking will fall short because when it comes to sexual connections, it seems there is a much greater psychological or spiritual impact.

On “psychopathic behaviour”:
Would it help if this was narrowed down to specific specific psychopathic tendencies?

Also, on the “not much you can do” point by the criminologist, I reckon he/she is mostly right. When it comes to humans developing self-control in their lives, their desire(will) to change is absolutely key. You can’t change someone’s desire(will) by brute force or by yelling at them. However, if they genuinely want to (in this case) not be a psychopath, then I think there IS much that can be done.

I guess if you were wanting to study whether, say, psychopaths inherit their behavioural patterns by genetics, foetal development or later in life it would be immensely helpful to have a selection of psychopathic identical twins, some of whom are separated at birth. That way you’d be able to detect whether their behaviour was more a result of their upbringing or a combination of genes/in-womb development. From there, if you had a strong indication that it wasn’t upbringing you might be able to narrow down whether it is genetics or foetal development by looking for patterns of psychopathy in siblings or close relatives.

Of course, psychopathic behaviour might be a mixture of all three in which case it becomes very difficult to determine how much each one might contribute.

I recently saw a series of documentaries on TV about some prominent NZ criminals and the criminologist made quite a point of saying that there was not much you can do if someone was a psychopath. Does anyone know much about this?

(paragraph 2) It’s actually a little frustrating (but only a little!) that you keep say this Damian. I’ve not once referred to the Bible - much less an ‘external’ principle. I’m arguing from physiology and physchology (which, as we’re discussing, is also physiological. I could just as easily accuse you of thinking it’s OK because you live in a modern, western culture which highly values individual freedom and rights - but I don’t.

(paragraph 3) As for specific experiments (with all the right controls, etc.), I can’t think of any at the moment. I have general thoughts, though. Things like hair/eye/skin colour/type, likeness to parents, and other physiological traits are obviously genetic. Now, I understand that some behavioural things seem inherited as well, though I suppose that’s what the nature v. nurture arguments are about? Again, for me, the ‘truth that can set us free’ (so to speak) is that regardless of what behavioural dispositions we may or may not have inherited via our parent’s genes or our cultural (including parental/familial ‘memes’, we can change. Just because one’s father was/is an alchoholic doesn’t mean the daughter (or son) has to be. The genetic and/or memetic influences may indeed be strong for various behavioural dispositions, but my point is that part of being truly human is to fully develop self-control in one’s self. This is one thing that (as far as I know) distinguishes humans from the rest of the animals. We can and do choose to do things ‘above’ (and not ‘below’ or ‘against’) our biological nature.

(paragraph 4) Indeed. All we can do is try.

Nice one, Jack. I still like your honest questions, though, and would love to hear how you are thinking about these things…

You derive your ethics from scripture and a sense of some external “right way” whereas I don’t. And I don’t think that any amount of logical discussion around the physical mechanisms will change this fundamental difference. In fact, in even arguing the point with you I feel I am forcing you to take a more bigoted stance than you naturally would and it leaves me feeling bad.

On the subject of experiments though; in a general manner, can you think of a good way to determine differences between what might be learned behaviour and genetic pre-programming in humans? And perhaps also a way to distinguish between early developmental programming and later environmental influence?

The general topic of the causes of behaviour is probably quite fascinating to us both and we should be able to talk about this in a neutral way without needing to introduce any form of moralising (which doesn’t appear to have really gotten us anywhere so far).