Oxytocin and social norms reduce xenophobia

link to sources

https://idw-online.de/de/news679448

http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/studie-hormon-nasenspray-kann-fremdenfeindlichkeit.2850.de.html?drn:news_id=780601

http://www.ndr.de/info/sendungen/auf_ein_wort/Das-Kuschelhormon-hat-es-wirklich-in-sich,hormon100.html

>>9108701
>how the FUCK is this ethical
The subjects consented, and the effects were only temporary

>>9108722
he means if they use it to try to make people less racist/accepting of millions of sandy savages

>>9108728
yeah, should of worded that better

>>9108737
Boohoo.

File: objection.jpg (9KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 259x194px

>>9108701
First of all, this argument is a circular argument fallacy.
>>How can xenophobia be reduced and altruism strengthened?
The argument assumes a status called xenophobia without ever proving it in a scientific setting.

More and more im seeing scientist labelling survival mechanisms such as disgust as a phobia, which implies without proof that it is an irrational response.

Even phobias arnt irrational, phobia of blood could prevent HIV infection, phobia of spiders could prevent coming into contact with an unidentified spider which could be poisonous. You cant expect the human body to keep a catalogue of the appearance of all spiders just to avoid being branded a phobia. But putting all of this aside.

The purpose of altruism is to increase the likely hood of the survival of genes beneficial to those who practice altruism. Giving money to people you dont know is not altruism. That is BLIND altruism.

Funny how after reading The Selfish Gene i have a better understanding of genetic motivations and altruism than these so called "researchers".

The real joke is that i actually support altruism. But i support intelligent altruism, which has to be backed up by logic. Afterall what good is good that isnt logical?

>Under the influence of oxytocin, the individuals who tended to show a positive attitude towards refugees doubled their donations

So youve discovered a drug that effects peoples emotional judgments. Big deal. I dont use emotions at any stage of the assessment of altruism. I use critical thinking.

Laslty apart from the circular argument fallacies of both terms xenophobia and altrusim. There is also a circular argument oover "those in need" and "s who expressed a rather defensive attitude towards migrants". These are all subjective judgments. Not proven by science.

Continued 1/2

>>9108788
>>9108701
Continued 2/2

Furthermore the entire article while proposing to be scientific distinctly represents the modern permissivist ideology. I think we can agree that keeping ideology outof science is whats best. Afterall ideologies are biases and vested interests which skew the results. Your article for example consists very much of conformation bias, the specific bias your trying to confirm is all of these terms ive described as circular arguments.

>>9108701
how is it ethical to treat racism and bigotry?
uhhhh

>>9108796
In my experience as a debater and critical thinker and user of scientific method in my debates for about 11 years.

So far ive found that the first person to call someone a bigot is usually also a bigot.

The definition of bigotry im using is "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." Which obviously calling someone a bigot is intolerant to their opinions which you find to be intolerant of others.

A similar logical flaw is found in those who use the term homobobia. Expressing that they have a phobia of homophobia.

That is, assuming that things labelled phobias are irrational hatreds. Which they are not always and are mislabelled.

>>9108788
>>9108792
>>9108805
good posts, thanks.

>>9108701
>how the FUCK is this ethical in any scientific setting?
Ethics are more of a political matter than a scientific one, but since it's still science-related, I'll answer. When leftists are in charge, anything can magically become ethical (especially if it's about making people feel good). Germs having oxytocin in their water is exactly like Burgerstani having fluoride in theirs. Leftists want the government to literally be God because they're so uncapable of unfucking themselves on an individual level that they think the only way for society to improve is that the government does it for them (and of course it almost never works in practice, but they're already 100 excuses ahead of you).

>>9108788
This post smells Reddit. The spacing, over half of it being trivial psychology shit, the Dawkangz autofellatio, the blatantly bogus claim to be the knight of reason and logic, exposing your knowledge without answering OP's question...

i know some hicks who had to take it in high school that were far from tarqs. would be more useful to know than french or spanish though so i wish my highschool taught it

>>9108701
>>9109091
dickhead tricked me into posting here. since /sci/ apparently doesn't want you to delete posts i guess janny can clean up after me

>>9108728
Its making a heavy error in assumptions. People who are against supporting refugees are against it because they care about the people in the host country that the refugees might hurt. Increased sensitivity to empathetic coercion won't change this decision. It's not a lack of empathy. It's a misassumption.

>>9108701
how feasible would it be to distribute this through main water supplies
as far as I know Oxytocin cant get into the brain if its ingested, youve been able to get it as sprays and shit for decades to make people fall in love with you and all sorts of bullshit, but none of it works unless you can already get close enough to the girl to inject it into her brain.

>>9109085
>This post smells Reddit. The spacing, over half of it being trivial psychology shit, the Dawkangz autofellatio, the blatantly bogus claim to be the knight of reason and logic, exposing your knowledge without answering OP's question...

1.) I have never posted on reddit.
2.) The spacing was meant to make each statement be considered individually without turning it into a long paragraph. Why does this trigger you?
>"Dawkangz autofellatio",
if by that you mean i referenced part of his very reasonable work in the selfish gene. Why would this trigger you? Im not an SJW, infact Dawkins very soundly disproves gayness in his book. A fact which he then ignores for some reason while trying to get the gays to support him.
>"the blatantly bogus claim to be the knight of reason and logic".
If by this you mean that the logic i use is bogus, yet comes completely from critical thinking, which is logic this argument contradicts itself. Obviously you dont know much about critical thinking and debating.
>exposing your knowledge without answering OP's question..."
I CHOSE what i was responding to because that is what the logic described. I dont have to answer ops question. Which seems like a rhetorical question anyway. My own view is that, if this is forced upon people in the hopes of serving some belief which turns out is an ideology. Then this would be against ethics.

Why get triggered so easily? I get it, you hate the permissive, closet communist SJW ideologies. But why do you see that here when its not?

>>9109446
>The spacing was meant to make each statement be considered individually without turning it into a long paragraph.
Paragraphs are meant to divide your text into parts, not sentences. Here's what it would look like if you did one paragraph per point:
>The argument assumes a status called xenophobia without ever proving it in a scientific setting. More and more im seeing scientist labelling survival mechanisms such as disgust as a phobia, which implies without proof that it is an irrational response. Even phobias arnt irrational, phobia of blood could prevent HIV infection, phobia of spiders could prevent coming into contact with an unidentified spider which could be poisonous. You cant expect the human body to keep a catalogue of the appearance of all spiders just to avoid being branded a phobia.

>if by that you mean i referenced part of his very reasonable work in the selfish gene. Why would this trigger you?
Dawkins is a notorious retard overall. He literally considers Darwin as the pinnacle of science despite the fact evolutionary biology has been one of the most useless branches of science, in opposition with electrical and electronics engineering which have changed our daily lives and added value to the economy like no invention before. Not to mention his pride of having invented the word that destroyed the Internet and the classic Dawkins Dilemma which is far from done keeping Atheists from sleeping at night.

There are countless sources about altruism, both religious and secular, but you chose the one that caters most to idiots.

>If by this you mean that the logic i use is bogus
Read your own post again to see what I meant. The only thing all the memers spewing out "I use logic and reason, what I say is 100% rigorous, science is on my side" I met have had in common is that despite having no argument, they feel superior and think all criticism of their claims comes from people who don't understand shit about the subject.