Just like male facial hair - it doesn’t start appearing until the teenage years so its appearance must be cultural :P

When you have a preformed ideological conclusion then logic is the first causality in any study.

> logic is the first causality

Probably the opposite of your intended meaning heh

LOL. Yes that should be casualty :)

Nah, it's a special logic caused by the intended conclusion.

I'm guessing you are not an expert in human behavior. I'm not either. Your last sentence though is an example of the sort of sloppy thinking that kills your desire to read further.

You say, "different populations may have evolved...". You don't present any evidence for this. You just state it as a possibility. It might be the case that god causes the delay in Tibetans. Is it the responsibility of the article to counter this possibility? The article gives a credible reason for the delay in Tibetans and if the reason is correct it reinforces the idea that it is cultural.

I assume the researchers know a lot more about the topic than I do. In my experience if there is a possible objection to a conclusion researchers have made that I can think of when thinking about the topic for a few minutes then I'm the one who is almost certainly wrong.

You seem to have made the common error of confusing “suggests” with “admits of no other explanation.”

"No such thing is suggested"

How much more explicit do you need me to be?

The arguments you presented supporting that do not support the absence of a suggestion, they support the absence of conclusive proof by presenting a possible alternative explanation.

Why do you say that? The suggestion looks clear to me. A suggestion is a not overwhelming evidence.

As presented in the article, the learned behaviour suggestion is a complete non sequitur.

I suspect it appears clear to you only because you share the author's preconceived and possibly subconscious notion.

The notion that children are not developing many new brain functions as late as 10, so behaviors that show up then are probably cultural?

That is not a non sequitur.

> Different populations may have evolved different inbred attitudes to equality.

I agree with the rest of your post, but here you seem to be reaching. Are there examples of behavioral/moral differences between human populations that are known to have a genetic basis?

Are there any which are known not to?

Why would you assume human populations to follow a pattern distinctly different from all the rest of biology?

> Are there any which are known not to?

Are there any behavioral differences known not to have a genetic basis? Yes. When in Southeast Asia, I don't show people the soles of my feet (it's not considered nice, at least in some places). In Europe I have no qualms about showing people the soles of my feet. Behavioral difference. Yet my genes don't change when traveling from A to B.

> Why would you assume human populations to follow a pattern distinctly different from all the rest of biology?

What exactly are you claiming about "the rest of biology"? Are you confusing human populations that look slightly different from each other but belong to the same species with different species of, say, felines?

Oh, I see. The cultural difference between Julius the labrador, living here, never having hurt a living being in his ten years of life, and the yapping terrier living next door, killing cats and rodents on an industrial scale.

Well, dog behavior is due to a large part to how they are handled by humans, and what kinds of humans pick which kinds of dogs is to a large part cultural. But yes, there is a genetic element, you're right. The hugely artificial creatures created by dog breeders aren't a very convincing example for broad statements about "the rest of biology", though.

Because humans haven't been around long enough for one to expect that sort of genetic variation. Possibly because the link between behavior and genetics is nonexistent. I don't know enough about the topic to know if there is a link between genetics and behavior. Do you know if there is?

There is quite a lot of evidence that species of animals that work in cooperative groups engage various forms of behavior that seek to equalize outcomes for the group, even to their (individual) detriment. Notable examples include apes.

My statement was about the genetic basis for behavior in humans and whether there has been enough time for genetic based human behavior to have much variation.

You would not expect populations separated by thousands of years of existence under wildly differing conditions to evolve different patterns of behaviour? Please elaborate.

Your last sentence of your original post was

"...evolved different inbred attitudes..."

This refers to evolved in the sense of genetics. Of course human populations have different patterns of behavior. But the question is whether these patterns are cultural versus being genetic. My response above has to do with the genetic basis of behavior differences.

EDIT: Thousands of years may not be enough time to cause a genetic basis for differences in human behavior. This was the original objection raised by interfixus. The objection does not seem reasonable given the lack of evidence given for said objection in the context of interfixus complaining about the sloppy thinking in the article.

Call me paranoid, but it's also a Chinese study suggesting Tibetan culture is worse than the Chinese one.

Having said that, whatever the cause of it is, the results might still be something we want to try to address.

Its wrong to say no such thing is suggested, what it isn't is strong evidence of causation.

Are you suggesting rank-reversal aversion (and so other behaviours in the social reflexes range, I suppose) is innate ?

Many "social reflexes" behaviours are innate. Try raising a cat to have the same social behaviours as a dog.

What does this day about the difference between charitable people and selfish people. It's all just a throw of the dice?

Two answers:

In relation to the article, I am certainly not falling into the trap of suggesting anything not really indicated by the data in case.

Personally, I most definitely am.