Yes.. Both Tarzan and the Jungle Book help to underscore the point I was making concerning r****m being a genetic characteristic..... In both cases the young homo sapiens were raised from infancy by caring parents of a different species... And both grew up to be fine young men... Who both wished to live with their own kind... And eventually made the t***sition...

There are numerous studies concerning children and r****m.. I have a file with some interesting ones somewhere on a USB... I will make the effort to look for them...

Another interesting study (the name escapes me, but I have it printed out and in my study somewhere) concerns a fascinating test... Individuals of the white and black race were hooked up to a monitoring device and then shown videos of hands being pricked by needles... There were three categories: white hands; black hands; purple hands... As might be expected, individuals reacted to a greater degree when hands matching their skin color were pricked... This would seem to indicate a subconscious r****m...

But if far greater interest, was that individuals reacted to a greater degree when the purple hand was pricked then when the hand if the opposing skin color was pricked... Which would seem to indicate that we are genetically predispositioned to ignore the pain of "others"...

Education allows us to live life to a greater degree... Unfortunately, too much education these days is lacking in practical experience... Want a child to overcome racial tendencies??? Place him in a situation that forces him to acknowledge they first exist, then allow him to accept them as a part of himself, and finally allow him to work out strategies to counter them himself...

This desire to ignore biological differences, rather then embrace them as a part of what makes us us, is bizarre and will ultimately lead to conflict between various groups...

First let me just say you have to be careful with studies. Just as with statistics. Their out come can be fed.

For example...study quote "This would seem to indicate a subconscious r****m," no it is indicating that I relate to myself.

I'm sorry but I also don't agree with that scenario, which is because we relate to ourselves first, that does not mean we ignore the feelings of others, but is that taught? I think it is in our consciousness and is than nurtured. Do you believe that is in our DNA, I believe it may be. Is love? we know the seed of self love is, from there it expands as we grow up it grows outward from ourselves towards others. Depending our own environment and experiences which determines it expenditure.

There is a book out there titled Deep Survival: Who lives, who dies, and Why.

Lawrence Gonzales, the author, provides anecdotal evidence that trying to intellectually reason through a life threatening circumstance can get you k**led. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The emotional and physiological responses to life threatening situations can overwhelm the instincts embedded in our DNA.

In one chapter, the author is aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier. He is in the pilot's ready room attending the pilots' pre-flight briefing for their first night landing quals. The Landing Signal Officer, who is responsible for guiding the pilots to a landing back on the carrier in a way that doesn't get anybody k**led, is giving the pilots their briefing. Here's what the LSO told them:

"You're at the quarter mile and someone asks you who your mother is: you don't know. That's how focused you are. Okay, call the ball (land the aircraft). Now it's a knife fight in a phone booth. Remember, full power in the wire. Your IQ rolls back to that of an ape."

And Gonzales writes: It sounds as if he's being a smart ass, but deep lessons also are there to be teased out like some obscure Talmudic script. Lessons about survival, about what you need to know and what you don't need to know. About the surface of the brain and its deep recesses. About what you know that you don't know you know and about what you don't know that you'd better not think you know.

Call it an ape, call it a horse, as Plato did. Plato understood that emotions could trump reason and that to succeed we have to use the reins of reason on the horse of emotion. That turns out to be remarkably close to what modern research has begun to show us, and it works both ways. The intellect without the emotions is like the jockey without the horse.

IOW, if you are not emotionally and mentally prepared to deal with a life threatening situation, your natural instincts to stay alive can easily be overwhelmed.

Oddly, as Gonzales reiterates throughout the book, one human response to life threatening situations can make all the difference - a sense of humor.

Collectively we all set the bars. This is why we try disparage r****m from others, it is a hurtful dogma.
It being a DNA factor, I don't agree with that analogy. R****m is a learned condition. Just to be clear, you do realize this premise you're debating is not mine?

Yes, we do share some primitive baseline emotions, but we have the mental capacity for a much greater understanding which is why I don't buy into comparing us to something so unevolved as ants or even animals. Yes I find it interesting analyzing instincts which are intrinsic in us, but as far as a general study, one cannot observe our instinct's without our rationale. Comparing r****m with an infant or toddler is a moot point when we're dealing with the behavior of adult human beings.

I believe we are in agreement here.