Person in a Controlled Room

[Clank]

Question I've always pondered. (brought about by the religious debates)

If someone was born into a controlled room, allowed no human contact.
They lived out their life, in this room, knowing nothing else than the boundries of their room.

Would they sin?

I think it would be very interesting to monitor this, although quite cruel. Change nothing their entire life (no seeing if they jump at loud noises, etc. No test run period. Just sit and watch), but allow him/her to have complete free will within their habitat. What would they do, would any of it be remotely close to what we as humans do now?

[leg]

Allowed no human contact after birth? I'd think they would die. Although I'm not completely sure, but I could of swore there were studies which concludedd that animals/humans would die from the absence of love during infancy.

[Edy]

If they were a baby, how would they know how to eat? Although born with instincts, they wouldn't know where to look to get food.

[dys]

I think he's asking us to overlook the technicalities and just go on a hypothetical here...

My answer is no, they would not 'sin', or do anything wrong. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. If they ahven't been given the opportunity to learn from right and wrong, nor had any teaching or anything else, they'd be on par with the lower level retards. And who doesn't love those guys?

[Ignatz]

A person who was subjected to that kind of experiment would never become a person. They would not be functionally sane. Experiments with monkeys have shown this.

[MidnightStalker]

Sadly, such incidences have occured in past with humans, and God forbid they currently occur. Though in most cases of which I'm aware there was some human contact while being isolated, but mostly negative. The result of such isolation for these feral children is severe psychological damage. These people fail to function properly, nevermind the idea of sinning.

[Zogo]

I'm pretty sure that the bible says that all are born into sin and have sinned before they even knew what it was.

satan also attacks people directly.

[kno[x]]

Well, this would never be allowed to do ethic guidelines set by the APA (Little Albert anyone?), but, leg is correct. There was an experiment shown that a lack of comfort during infancy results in an early death.

[Thrash]

Hitler did these experiments didn't he? The infants died.

Same with the Genie girl, that horribly abused girl who was retarded and lost the ability to learn language because of the isolation she suffered from.

Not really commenting on the original post, just saying.

[andr3w]

you are born into the world as a sinner.

[kno[x]]

Yeah, Genie was the feral child, in psychological terms. She was kept in the isolated room strapped to a chair. Daddy knocked her senseless if she spoke.

[Frag]

Same with the Genie girl, that horribly abused girl who was retarded and lost the ability to learn language because of the isolation she suffered from.

they dont know if she was retarded before or after the incident

theres a critical period of language, where if you werent exposed to a language before __ years,months, you would forever be unable to learn a language. genie is an example of this.

[puppychow]

how can one truly sin in the absense of others?

[leg]

That depends on your definition of a sin. If God ultimately decides what is or isn't a sin, than it really doesn't matter who or what it around you.

[puppychow]

the 'sins' that can happen in ones head, like thinking of banging your neighboors wife, are learned experiences through human interaction. so, if one was in a controlled enviornment their entire life, then no, i dont think they could sin. really, what could they possibly do or think? The bad thoughts stuff is socialized.

[puppychow]

you are born into the world as a sinner.

well maybe YOU were, but I wasn't. :)

[MidnightStalker]

they dont know if she was retarded before or after the incident

theres a critical period of language, where if you werent exposed to a language before __ years,months, you would forever be unable to learn a language. genie is an example of this.
She was suspected of mild retardation (unfounded or not remains to be seen) in her infant years which lead her dad to overreact (understatement) and do the things that happened to her. Of course, her isolation severely impacted her overall psychological functions. Though most scientists agree on the critical period hypothesis for language aquisition, I think the experiments done on the poor girl in an attempt to test the hyposthesis and use her as a lab rat for their experiments was abominable. Truly, there is no story of more woe.

As for sins, do you consider masturbation a sin? I can think of a lot of people who would. In one such incidence where a child has been insolated in real life (Genie, again), she ended up masturbating a lot. I believe, when such isolation occurs the people can't tell right from wrong. There's certain brain development that just doesn't happen. Thus, if they do something inappropiate or 'sinful' they may not even be aware of it.

[Success@Failure]

As a Catholic you are born into the world with Original Sin, you know the Adam and Eve thing, so unless that child is baptized then yes, they have commited a sin.

[Hellsy]

*Ignoring that the individual wouldn't die or go mad or simply never develop any decent kind of mind.*

It's entirely possible to sin. A person could envy fictional characters. One could believe that some all powerful individual created his room and intentionally reject "him". Thus being a heretic.

Here are the commandments I could break while alone.

1) Having other Gods.
2) I could make an idol.
3) Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy... (rather difficult considering I don't know what the Sabbath is)
4) You shall not covet your neighbor's X

I could invent fictional worlds wherein I covet the character's belongings, truly wishing I had them in actuality, while toiling away in the room.

5) I imagine I'd get a lot of masturbating done.

[-Dirby-]

Man over the course of history has become sinful by nature.
Would he sin? Probably.
Is it possible he wouldn't? Sure.

[puppychow]

become more sinful or has more opportunity/methods to sin by?

[-Dirby-]

become more sinful or has more opportunity/methods to sin by?
both. The more we sin the further away our hearts get from God. Which just creates a more sinful environment.

[arisen]

perhaps someone can clarify something for me. who's to say what's right, and what's wrong? it's become some sort of a.. social clause you could say -- to act humane. life is too subjective to assume what others do is immoral, let alone wrong. social guidelines are just another form of repression. i'm speaking somewhat facetiously, but it's something to ponder none the less. life itself is in the eye of the beholder. most of you are looking at this concept too linearly.

[Zogo]

how can one truly sin in the absense of others?

they'd have a desire for a bigger room..

[bergenhell]

this whole sinning by born thing needs to be left out. not everyone believes they should spend their entire life apologizing to god for being born.


to the original post...

it would be hard to sin in that hypothetical situation because as far as I know, most sins are a result of human interaction with one another. the problem I have is what guidelines for sin we're looking at. if you're speaking from a catholic point of view, any accidental contact between hand and penis might be a sin. i think peeing is a sin too.

either way this really couldn't happen. i'm not sure i buy into the whole "comfort or die" thing when being raised, but humans don't have enough insticts to take care of themselves at birth (even in a controlled environment). another problem is that isolating someone in a big room wouldn't work, it'd have to be an island out in the middle of nowhere or something similar.

[kno[x]]

they dont know if she was retarded before or after the incident

theres a critical period of language, where if you werent exposed to a language before __ years,months, you would forever be unable to learn a language. genie is an example of this.

Genie actually could learn a small portion of language, but where she had missed the open-window of opportunity she would never be able to get a full grasp of language.

[SenSai]

sin is subjective, not objective. you'll commit any "sin" given the right amount of incentives.

[-Dirby-]

sin is subjective, not objective. you'll commit any "sin" given the right amount of incentives.
I disagree. Sin is sin. All sins carry the same consequences and every human on this earth sins.

[MidnightStalker]

Depends on your religion. Therefore I think it can be subjective. Masturbation, while sin to one, may not be to another, just to list one example.

[SenSai]

There is no such thing as an objective sin. Things that fall under the 'sin' category in the Bible were not written by 'God'...they were put in there by man to minimize negative effects on social welfare. By everyone commiting 'sin,' you mean everyone does bad things - and that's true.

Let's go with sex before marriage - considered a sin to this day. This wasn't some mandate by God...it was to help society. People back in Biblical times used to get married a lot earlier (as soon as a woman was able to start sexual reproducing - which would be early teens). It made sense back then because everyone married so early.

But, this doesn't work in today's realm because people are getting married later and later, and it is much harder to 'wait until marriage' today.

You can basically take anything in the Bible considered 'sin' and break it down to reason to determine why it was placed in the Bible by man. This goes with any other religion as well.

[Zogo]

People back in Biblical times used to get married a lot earlier (as soon as a woman was able to start sexual reproducing - which would be early teens).

a girl can get pregnant at 4 or 5 years of age.

[MidnightStalker]

Edit: nvm

[leg]

There is no such thing as an objective sin. Things that fall under the 'sin' category in the Bible were not written by 'God'...they were put in there by man to minimize negative effects on social welfare. I thought the writtings of the Bible were spiritually inspired by God. Not that I believe it, but that would mean that there is such a thing as an objective sin.

[SenSai]

a girl can get pregnant at 4 or 5 years of age.

And can you link to some actual proof on this? I was under the impression that there had to be a lot of physiological changes before a girl can actually conceive (you know, like puberty). A quick google search couldn't confirm your claim.

Anyway, what proof is there that the Bible is 'divinely inspired,' besides it being written in the book and people have told you it was that way.

[MidnightStalker]

a girl can get pregnant at 4 or 5 years of age.
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp

(NSFW)

Nevertheless, a story of "extraordinary hormonal disorder of pituitary origin." Any high school health class will tell you puberty is the earliest point at which pregnancy can occur.

[Unfor]

Well, I guess this question is really somewhat of an inquiry about the nature of sin and whether it is an entity external to social/religious constructs and influences. Naturally, it's all pretty relative as different people draw the line at different spots (i.e. 'sin' changes dramatically according to context)- but, it seems, on some level, like you're questioning whether contact with the world potentially would play a significant role in determining someone's relative moral standing (i.e. can isolationism eliminate/reduce sin). Keep in mind that the example is somewhat exaggerated- that is, to seemingly emphasize a one aspect of person: the innate moral compass (or whether it even exists).

Generally speaking, let's assume that it would rely on whether or not the individual is faced with moral decisions or not. If not, then sin can't really be qualified or quantified (at least from our perspective as there is the whole "God knows best" philosophy). However, I'd think that (if faced with moral decisions) the individual would be as prone to sin as well anyone- simply because it doesn't make too much sense to overlook the overwhelming impact environment and experience could have (i.e. some environments are more conducive to sin than others, etc).

[xero]

Sin is something humanity contrived -- made up for the purpose of social, cultural, and legal structure. To believe in sin, you are almost required to believe that without religion, there would be no morals, which is absurd.

Therefore, this whole hypothetical question is kind of useless, but I digress.

A person born into said situation who survived to adolescence would be mostly or entirely feral, on par with wild dogs, cats, or primates. This is documented by several scientific studies of real feral children all over the world. And last time I checked, animals are incapable of sin (which is funny, because there have been articles all over the news this week about the gay animal exhibit in Norway where a variety of different species participate in documented homosexual relationships in the wild -- but being gay is a sin for man; further proof that the concept of sin is extraordinarily flimsy and something we contrived for social control).

So logically, no. A isolated human being raised within such confines is incapable of sin because they lack the cognitive development to be classified as human on a social or cultural level and are therefore incapable of sinning.

That is, if you believe in sin. Which I don't.

[MidnightStalker]

Are you kidding me? Feral children aren't human?

[Zogo]

And can you link to some actual proof on this? I was under the impression that there had to be a lot of physiological changes before a girl can actually conceive (you know, like puberty). A quick google search couldn't confirm your claim.

the link was already posted..but her doctor looks like the guy from sin city

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/graphics/medina2.jpg

Anyway, what proof is there that the Bible is 'divinely inspired,' besides it being written in the book and people have told you it was that way.

you asking me?

[xero]

Are you kidding me? Feral children aren't human?If by 'human' you mean homo sapien, then yes, they are humans.

If by 'human' you be capable of communication, logic, empathy, and emotion; no, they aren't.

Feral humans are on par with wild animals. Their cognitive growth is so stunted that they're incapable of doing what it is to be human in the broader sense: reason, communicate, understand, and especially empathize with their fellow man.

An aside: I suppose in a lot of ways, they're more decent people than we are. They don't kill people who have different color skin from their own and drag their bodies behind pickup trucks or hang them from trees. They don't try to violently force their ways of life upon others by bombing abortion clinics or mailing pipebombs at random. They don't actively seek to push segments of society into isolation or poverty for their own gain. They don't round up entire races and gas them. They don't feed people who have different religious beliefs to lions. They don't exterminate entire continents of people and destroy whole civilizations so they can have some land and some gold. And they don't hijack jetliners and crash them into commercial buildings because they think they're carrying out the will of God.

[SenSai]

the link was already posted..but her doctor looks like the guy from sin city

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/graphics/medina2.jpg

And as any good scientist, I'm not going to say 4-5 is the youngest age for ALL girls to start reproducing. A sample size of one is a pretty shitty sample size.


you asking me?

It's an open question, if you have an answer, let's hear it.

[Stayne]

']Well, this would never be allowed to do ethic guidelines set by the APA (Little Albert anyone?), but, leg is correct. There was an experiment shown that a lack of comfort during infancy results in an early death.

Couple of things.

First, I never thought I'd see a B.F. Skinner avatar on here. Kudos if you have read any of his work and understand it. He's easily one of the most important yet misunderstood 20th centurty psychologists.

Second, the Little Albert experiments are also poorly represented in Intro textbooks and internet websites. For some reason, people get all up in arms when people experiment on babies :rolleyes: The experiment itself was groundbreaking and in accordance to the guidelines of the day (1920). Essentially, Watson first showed that Albert was not afraid of white fluffy things, then he paird white fluffy things with a loud noise that scared the bejesus out of Albert. Soon, Albert was afraid of and crawling away from white fluffy things. The next phase of the experiment was to uncondition the fear response to white fluffy things, thereby returning Albert to where he began. This would show complete experimental control over Albert's fear response. However, before the series could be completed, Albert was pulled from the study.

The experiment wouldn't meet APA standards of ethical treatment today, but its never fair to judge history on current standards and ethics. You have to free yourself from the biases of today to understand the actions of yesterday.

Anyways, here's to Thorndike, Watson and Skinner, the first and foremost American psychological scientists of the 20th century. There have been and continue to be many scientistic psychologists, but there are few true scientists in psychology.


Third thing: Socialization is a HUGE part of "being human". Locking someone in a room by themselves removes all socialization and therefor results in the subject being something that is homo sapien, but not really "human". One place to look for research on this topic is the studies on children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Although the kids were not locked in separate rooms, the socialization was very different from your average home since the ratio of caregivers to children was very low.

[MidnightStalker]

Eh, my sister was adopted from Romania. She's fine; in fact, she's a socialite. (Misdiagnosed as having ADHD; only has a slight learning disability.)

[Zogo]

And as any good scientist, I'm not going to say 4-5 is the youngest age for ALL girls to start reproducing. A sample size of one is a pretty shitty sample size.

I never said all did..I don't think you can put a set date on it anyway..

lol, scientist? how could you get an accurate number for this? it's extremely taboo to procreate with people that young in most cultures.

It's an open question, if you have an answer, let's hear it.

I don't have an answer but I know how someone would answer it..say something about how the wording in the bible hasn't changed that much in the last 20 centuries based on deadsea scrolls and other findings.

They don't kill people who have different color skin from their own and drag their bodies behind pickup trucks or hang them from trees. They don't try to violently force their ways of life upon others by bombing abortion clinics or mailing pipebombs at random. They don't actively seek to push segments of society into isolation or poverty for their own gain. They don't round up entire races and gas them. They don't feed people who have different religious beliefs to lions. They don't exterminate entire continents of people and destroy whole civilizations so they can have some land and some gold. And they don't hijack jetliners and crash them into commercial buildings because they think they're carrying out the will of God.

if you got a big group of them together they might start doing things of this nature (territorial behavior etc.)..of course not at the same level of sophistication.

[Stayne]

Eh, my sister was adopted from Romania. She's fine; in fact, she's a socialite. (Misdiagnosed as having ADHD; only has a slight learning disability.)

Not all orphanages fit that same description. I'm glad that she is fine, though. ;)

[VeeKaChu]

I disagree. Sin is sin. All sins carry the same consequences and every human on this earth sins.No. What you meant to say was "many/most christian sects consider that every human on this earth sins." It's a wholly subjective view, and it only applies to those who accept it.

[Rand]

how can one truly sin in the absense of others?


Or as others have pointed out, which I again learned today at church: When we are born, we are sinners. Why? And I have a personal question to ask the powers that be that left me, me.

[SenSai]

I never said all did..I don't think you can put a set date on it anyway..

lol, scientist? how could you get an accurate number for this? it's extremely taboo to procreate with people that young in most cultures.

Actually, there is a pretty good sample size for a study like this: it's called Africa. There is a common belief among many populations that if you have sex with a virgin, you will be cured of AIDs.

I don't have an answer but I know how someone would answer it..say something about how the wording in the bible hasn't changed that much in the last 20 centuries based on deadsea scrolls and other findings.

A quick Wikipedia search for "Dead Sea Scrolls" would tell you that the information on these scrolls pertains to the Hebrew portion of the Bible. And under the 'Significance' portion, you'll find that there is enough changes compared with the Greek manuscripts to warrant discussion among text scholars.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make...the Bible is a book with valuable lessons that will help you lead a good life but shouldn't be taken as the literal and objective truth.

[Thrash]

When we are born, we are sinners. Why?
My question also.

[MidnightStalker]

Haven't you read that religgion thread?

[Zogo]

Actually, there is a pretty good sample size for a study like this: it's called Africa. There is a common belief among many populations that if you have sex with a virgin, you will be cured of AIDs.

yes, but are you employing any kind of scientific methodology to confirm that?
afaik these people aren't under observation.

A quick Wikipedia search for "Dead Sea Scrolls" would tell you that the information on these scrolls pertains to the Hebrew portion of the Bible. And under the 'Significance' portion, you'll find that there is enough changes compared with the Greek manuscripts to warrant discussion among text scholars.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make...the Bible is a book with valuable lessons that will help you lead a good life but shouldn't be taken as the literal and objective truth.

I don't have a point really..I was just answering how someone would. and yes contrary to what most fundamentalists acknowledge it HAS changed. but according to them not that drastically. the dead sea scrolls also contained some other random books that disappeared and are not found anywhere in any modern holy book.

Or as others have pointed out, which I again learned today at church: When we are born, we are sinners. Why? And I have a personal question to ask the powers that be that left me, me.

the bible says that the sin is carried down through the man's seed. that's why the virgin birth was a miracle and jesus wasn't contaminated with it.

if you're asking why should we be punished beforehand IDK.

[Rand]

Haven't you read that religgion thread?

Yes, pretty much, I have. I asked the same thing there, and didn't see a reply. If I missed it, I apologize. I quoted puppychow and made my post to point out my question about, if you are a babe fresh from the womb, how can you have sin, just like puppy's question about can one truly have sin in the absence of others?

Thank you for your reply, Zogo.

I also sat through another week of a sermon about sacrificial giving, and it was brought up how much everyone can % to the church, which starts my mind to wander and think about how much church and religion resembles a business. But that would be for a different thread than this one.