Social science will remain forever in the dark, where it seems to be quite happy to stay, in attempting to explain human behavior unless it recognizes the importance of three simple things. First, mothers are important. Second, mothers are designed to influence or lead their offspring; and third, children are designed to respond to the influence of the parent. These seem like such simple obvious facts, but if we take that same idea back a generation or two worth of parents influencing children who grow up to be parents who influence, then we see that traditions are part of the picture--one generations copies the prior generation, back through time. We are designed this way.
So, the argument will be: why do intellects reject traditions? In my bad moments, I say because they are stupid. However, I would argue that they are influenced by the current focus on individualism, which implies that we allow few if anyone to influence us. To allow the past to influence us would be something they reject with vigor, as it is both old and involves influence.
So, the next argument will be: parents don't influence children; peers do.
So, again, I would point to a novel environment. Somewhere I have a paper I wrote on parental, not peer influence. I will find it and summarize it in my next blog.
