Human Behavior

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There have been some things being bandied about in the US Politics thread that clearly should live on their own.

A couple of questions were asked:

Does altruism exist?

What is the effect of nature vs. nurture?

Let's not yell at each other, and let's be sensible about this.  There are a lot of positions both pro and con on both topics.

First, let's get some definitions.

Altruism: The Wiki Definition is "Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others." Link.

Human Nature:   Again, from Wiki "Human nature is the fundamental nature and substance of humans, as well as the range of human behavior that is believed to be invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts."

Nurture:  Wiki's definition is too long to copy here.  Link.

So here's hoping for a sensible discussion.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

We know these are hard questions.  You should be wary of displaying your cynicism with respect to altruistic behaviour.  You are showing that you believe that you never give without receiving, but one should be aware that an intangible benefit may be all you will get.  Murphy's Law says that if you help an old lady across the street there are several results:

• She hits you with her purse.  She didn't want to cross the street.
• You get hit by a car on the way back across.

I am sure you can think of others.  One of the things that goes with any altruistic tendencies on my part is the memory of someone saying that gratitude is the sincerest form of hate.

Now the nature part of the second proposition must include your genetics.  I, for example, have the same circulatory disease in my legs that eventually killed my father, who died of an intractible infection that became septicemia.  I currently have a cellulitis that the medical crowd has been trying to kill for about two months, and am now on a double-whammy anti-biotic.  Of course, I have also inherited some nice things from my maternal side as well:  rheumatoid artritis, asthma, and from both, type 2 diabetes and galloping hypertension.  With the exception of the infection, all are admirably controlled through pharmaceuticals.  I have hopes for the amoxicilin+clavulin that I am on right now.  I think if this doesn't work we'll be moving to the heavy cannon.

Now the nurture part of the argument in my case has gone completely out the window.  Both of my parents were ordinary people with high-school educations that worked at not-much jobs all their lives.  I have superceded this tendency and have become a software engineer and consultant, and would you believe, by accident.  Maybe you have to be in the right place at the right time.  I got an unexpected break or two when it looked like I was going to be a lab tech at a big plant.  Maybe I should give thanks for the strike that killed that job, because I joined a Canadian chartered bank, who believe in college educations for all their people and who paid for most of a degree in commerce, mathematics, and liberal arts.  They also trained me in computers when computers were new and mysterious, and that's where my career lay.  I ended up as a professor of computer science at a post-secondary community college in Barrie, Ontario.  Not bad for a kid who grew up at the end of the War to End All Wars, eh?

So that's my example.  Real life (mine) on a stick.  I am glad it is not a stick out the window or some people might leap to their deaths.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

any action an individual takes has a selfish aspect.quote>

I would even take it a step further. Any action an individual takes is selfish. Period. The only difference between desire to help oneself and desire to help others is the effect of the actions taken to fulfil them; fundamentally they are exactly the same thing: a personal want that is satisfying to fulfill and disappointing to fail to fulfill.

This is why I laugh whenever anyone says I'm being selfish. You might as well tell me that I'm breathing.

And since I have little tolerance for BS, I do not pretend that I am ever acting in the interest of anyone but myself, and generally get annoyed when others do.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

People in power that make great noise about being selfless, altruistic, and supporters of the public good are usually the worst for the general public. "All actions have a selfish aspect" is the same as "all actions are inherently selfish to a certain degree." The best philosophy is to support yourself without taking from others, and produce or give products that benefit society, as well as being kind to your neighbors and doing at least some good deeds for others or society. If you steal from Peter to give to Paul and yourself, that is worst than not giving anything to Paul. If you make something and sell something to Peter that Paul cannot afford, that is better than not making anything but a more altruistic way is to make something that you sell at affordable prices for both Peter and Paul separately.

Altruism is often the public (mass propaganda) reason for most atrocities and evils in this world by people in power.

[Empowered One 41]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

any action an individual takes has a selfish aspect.quote>

I would even take it a step further. Any action an individual takes is selfish. Period. The only difference between desire to help oneself and desire to help others is the effect of the actions taken to fulfil them; fundamentally they are exactly the same thing: a personal want that is satisfying to fulfill and disappointing to fail to fulfill.

This is why I laugh whenever anyone says I'm being selfish. You might as well tell me that I'm breathing.

And since I have little tolerance for BS, I do not pretend that I am ever acting in the interest of anyone but myself, and generally get annoyed when others do.

quote>

The line between self preservation  and selfishness is a thin one. No one can give continuously without sacrificing him/herself and therefor a delicate balance between thinking for oneself and for others must be kept. I've known people who gave continueasly to the point that they became ill due to the lack of 'me-time'. And when they opt to get some 'me-time' and said 'no' to something, the responses from other people, who were spoiled by the constant giving, told the person that it was an utter selfish act. See how stupid it works in society?

There is rarely something wrong with chosing for one self, as long as you aren't tripping on your ego.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There is no question that in our society, number one comes first.  I have belonged to so-called mutual organizations that claimed to do works of temporal charity, but the internal back-biting always turned me off.  It seems that any collection of humans always pops out the competitive, and therefore, selfish attitude of 'me first'.  I have stopped giving to 'charitable organizations', and I especially denigrate those who have no transparency with thier allocation of funds.

Many such organizations are run by a committee (board of directors, what have you).  I am thoroughly convinced that a committee is a vertibrate organism with many lags but no brain.

So, I conduct my own charities, and I am the first beneficiary with either a material reward or some item of self-satisfaction.  Recently, breaking up my household after the death of my spouse, I found all kinds of people who would happily take away things I no longer needed or wanted, and the thanks on their part was at best grudging.  I have now discovered freecycle.org as a means of disposing of goods that I would otherwise have given to various organizations.  I'd rather give something to an individual than to a faceless outfit, even if the face is seen only once.  I suppose the gratification here is that I get a little social interaction with the receiver.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I think about the soldier who sacrifices himself for his comrade.  There is no reward, except good feeling for a few seconds, then death.  What good feeling he got is not shared by his family, so there is an inconsistency.quote>

Not necessarily. Depending on the soldier's belief system, he may believe he is moving on to a better place. It would be interesting to look into whether spiritual people are more likely to "sacrifice themselves" than people who are areligious.

And beyond that, there's always the human capacity for shortisghtedness. I daresay there have probably been plenty of people who've sacrificed themselves in order to feel good about doing something they percieve as honorable without really grasping the concept of "but then I won't be around to care". Most people seem to have some sort of interest in the legacy they leave behind, even if it is illogical. The destruction of consciousness is a tough thing to wrap one's mind around.

I also think about things in our society and how they could be better.  Gay Marriage, for example.  I'm not gay, I have no  interest in gay affairs (don't be pervie, folks), but I whole heartedly believe in their right to marry.  How do I benefit from it?quote>

You satisfy your sense of morality. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

What about human behavior when the choice is not necessarily free? 

Let's take the example of an Islamic suicide bomber.  He has the choice of pushing the button or not. Yet many do it in hopes of an eternal reward.  But the Koran is specifically against suicide, and promises an eternity of hell for this offense.  Now, in this case, who is the killer?  The person or persons who convinced the bomber that he will get an eternal reward, or the bomber who, of his own will, pushes that button?  After all, he could have just taken his belt off, and gone his way.  (I know some belts are booby trapped against this, but in this case the killer's identity is clear.)

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Propaganda and other forms of conditioning can turn good people evil.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Propaganda and other forms of conditioning can turn good people evil.quote>

But the question is what happens to a persons behavior when the choice is known to be life or death.  Must he go through with it?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Propaganda and other forms of conditioning can turn good people evil.quote>

But the question is what happens to a persons behavior when the choice is known to be life or death.  Must he go through with it?quote>

Ilikeseattle has a very good point.  In the case of a religious fundamentalist, their behaviour has been conditioned so that they see the reward promised, not the penalty incurred.

Barbarossa

quote>

Well, yes.  But given that the Koran is correct and that there is an afterlife, it really is too bad that these young, mostly illiterate tools of evil, who are not evil in themselves, just misguided, are led to an eternity of flames.  The Prophet says it is alright to fight for a cause, and dying in it is not all that bad, but he is really against suicide.  It would be interesting to see what Iblis might have in store for those who successfully council suicide in the name of Islam.

In the Christian faith, the current thinking is that hell is not a place of physical torment at all.  Hell is the known permanent absence of God.

Man makes his hell in the image of his environment.  In more northern climes, the underworld is cold.

[lucky7 73]

Well, I think all forms and organizations having the formal purpose of 'altruism' tend to step backwards, as only a small amount of given donations are (and does anyone know if?) are given to the specific group in need. I doubt that his can ever be organized in a positive way... there is no need to focus on that any further, but let's deal with individuals.

In my opinion, it is absolutely vital and important to live altruism in everyday life, and I am not talking about the one propaganded by the Roman-Catholic Church, or any church, as I think that one can live a life without belonging to any organization. In fact, you do not have to be Christian in order of being a good human- a fact which is always told and submitted to the entire mankind having the purpose to blame 'the others' for completely sticking to old dogmas. Indeed, being Christian is good, indeed, being Buddhist is good, indeed, being Muslim is good, indeed, being Hindu is good, you name it. Being Agnostic is good, indeed.

And it is good to act well. This means that people should get more emphatic - and this term without switching over to esoterics - when interacting with others of our kind. I tell you something: I am a trainer in adult education working with the methods of Suggestopedia (Accelerated Learning) and it is one of my primary goals to cherish, honor and take my participants seriously - I have been learning that everyone is - luckily - different, but nevertheless you can really help people a lot by obviously doing a little- just like helping the old lady crossing the street. And having a serious approach to others. IMO it is the duty of everyone to help others- truly, according to situations- but helping without (and that is the important point!) wanting something in demand. Being Human is not focused on demanding, getting and paying back anymore... One, however, should trust his/her natural feelings. I guess there are some who do it and some who just do not. Also this sentence would lead to further discussions, so I want to stop here, as the whole topic might be already controversial to some people...

Take care everyone,

lucky7

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Human nature is not naturally evil. (almost) All the worst things blamed on human nature are acquired traits from learning or experiences. Human nature does not include hatred towards neighbors, human nature is about helping oneself and those associated with the self. In the strictest sense, human nature is nepotistic with utter indifference to far away strangers. Babies love everyone they believe to be family but ignore or misbehave around people they do not believe to be family.

This should help to explain things.

The "Self" is the most important thing according to human nature with "Family" being a close second in order to have more people like you in your legacy. The "Community" is third place because the tribe helps out with nurturing the younger part of the "Family" and works with the "Self" for mutual benefit. The "Far Away Strangers" should have a mutual apathy with neither paying attention to the other. The "Competition" has the ability to take away the livelihood of the "Self" or as far as the "Community" but if the "Competition" helps the Self, Family, and/or Community, there should be either ambivalence or mild liking. When the Far Away Strangers become dangerous Competition, then you get the closest to enemies. If there are any provocations between the Community and the Far Away Dangerously Competitive Strangers, then you can get the worst of enemies.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ilikeseattle certainly puts it succinctly, doesn't he?

That's a tough paragraph to absorb, but in the end, I am in agreement.  The ethic proposed by lucky7 seems reasonable, but have we construed altruism to be an expression of the golden rule?  And is it applicable?

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Some people say that babies are evil because they are racist and nepotistic but racism is caused by ignorance and nepotism is based on the security of those that raise you with no proof of people unrelated to you helping you.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Evil requires intent.  Babies are egotistical, selfish beings because if they were not, they would not survive.  Generally, I doubt than any child who has not learned to walk and talk could form the necessary intent to be evil.  On the other hand, a nursing mother could be an example of altruism.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Evil requires intent.  Babies are egotistical, selfish beings because if they were not, they would not survive.  Generally, I doubt than any child who has not learned to walk and talk could form the necessary intent to be evil.  On the other hand, a nursing mother could be an example of altruism.

[warrior 169]

I would even take it a step further. Any action an individual takes is selfish. Period

Your in a train there's one seat left and there's only one other person standing than you, an old woman, your both standing next to this chair, either one of your could sit down on it. The old woman doesn't because she doesn't want to take the last seat with someone else standing, but you don't know that.

Do you:

A) Take the seat.

B) Ask the woman if she'd like the seat.

C) Ask the woman if she'd like the seat, she takes too long so you just sit down.

A nursing mother can get enjoyment out of watching her kids grow, and looking after them in the good times, so not necessarily alturism, Also some poorer cultures, you need to have children s they can look after you when you get old.

Babies do not know that they want to survive. And they have no intent, not even the intent to walk or talk, it is the carer (mother etc) who has the intent for the baby to walk/talk/etc.

IMO if a God promotes killing other people who are defenseless or purely because of where they are/what they believe (7/7 attacks on London, 9/11, etc) he is not worth anything, and if he turns out to be real then it's the same as on Earth, we know Barack Obama is real, doesn't mean he is right or necessarily a good person.

[warrior 169]

I would even take it a step further. Any action an individual takes is selfish. Period

Your in a train there's one seat left and there's only one other person standing than you, an old woman, your both standing next to this chair, either one of your could sit down on it. The old woman doesn't because she doesn't want to take the last seat with someone else standing, but you don't know that.

Do you:

A) Take the seat.

B) Ask the woman if she'd like the seat.

C) Ask the woman if she'd like the seat, she takes too long so you just sit down.

A nursing mother can get enjoyment out of watching her kids grow, and looking after them in the good times, so not necessarily alturism, Also some poorer cultures, you need to have children s they can look after you when you get old.

Babies do not know that they want to survive. And they have no intent, not even the intent to walk or talk, it is the carer (mother etc) who has the intent for the baby to walk/talk/etc.

IMO if a God promotes killing other people who are defenseless or purely because of where they are/what they believe (7/7 attacks on London, 9/11, etc) he is not worth anything, and if he turns out to be real then it's the same as on Earth, we know Barack Obama is real, doesn't mean he is right or necessarily a good person.

[saltandsauce 0]

too many people read Neitzche

he's more cynical than healthy man is shut up and enjoy life, you're a long time dead. (esp. if you're atheist)

there is this strange thought that killing is bad and stealing is bad, it is drawn from the history of religions there isn't any relative arguement against me killing you all, i don't do it and won't do it for

A i can't find you all

B it's against my chosen religion

C current morality dictates that killing everyone is wrong and i like to be a moral person

this is the main reason i don't like "shades of grey" morality or "relative morality" look at the eugenics movement in Britain and America in the early 20th C, killing everyone can be considered a moral act for the following reason (i don't actually beleive in any of the stuff i'm about to say but it's to illustrate the dangers of relativism)

1, people are starving and will die a slow, painful death so put them out of their misery quickly

2, sick/ill people use up rescources which could be better used by the healthy

3, old people use up rescources which could be used up by the younger

4, people with bad genes must be removed from the gene pool for humanity's continuation

5, overpopulation

6, bad people must die

7, the poor are ugly and make rich people uncomfortable, rich people are important therefore if the rich demand the execution of the poor then thy shall be done

8, people are starving and will die a slow, painful death so put them out of their misery quickly

9, if people want to die they ought to

10, if people want to die but are unable to do it then they should be able to hire someone to kill them for them

the contemporary (secular in the actual sense of the time meaning "of the time") morality says things like people should have rights and these should be respected, killing people is wrong, people dying is a tragedy and stealing is bad (most of the time) but things will change and it could be possible that one day all 10 reasons for killing people will be part of widey accepted morality and depending on your individual conscience this is either a good or bad thing. you choose.

and all this from disagreeing on where "altruism" begins which is either "never" or "when people do stuff without a direct "quid pro quo"

[saltandsauce 0]

too many people read Neitzche

he's more cynical than healthy man is shut up and enjoy life, you're a long time dead. (esp. if you're atheist)

there is this strange thought that killing is bad and stealing is bad, it is drawn from the history of religions there isn't any relative arguement against me killing you all, i don't do it and won't do it for

A i can't find you all

B it's against my chosen religion

C current morality dictates that killing everyone is wrong and i like to be a moral person

this is the main reason i don't like "shades of grey" morality or "relative morality" look at the eugenics movement in Britain and America in the early 20th C, killing everyone can be considered a moral act for the following reason (i don't actually beleive in any of the stuff i'm about to say but it's to illustrate the dangers of relativism)

1, people are starving and will die a slow, painful death so put them out of their misery quickly

2, sick/ill people use up rescources which could be better used by the healthy

3, old people use up rescources which could be used up by the younger

4, people with bad genes must be removed from the gene pool for humanity's continuation

5, overpopulation

6, bad people must die

7, the poor are ugly and make rich people uncomfortable, rich people are important therefore if the rich demand the execution of the poor then thy shall be done

8, people are starving and will die a slow, painful death so put them out of their misery quickly

9, if people want to die they ought to

10, if people want to die but are unable to do it then they should be able to hire someone to kill them for them

the contemporary (secular in the actual sense of the time meaning "of the time") morality says things like people should have rights and these should be respected, killing people is wrong, people dying is a tragedy and stealing is bad (most of the time) but things will change and it could be possible that one day all 10 reasons for killing people will be part of widey accepted morality and depending on your individual conscience this is either a good or bad thing. you choose.

and all this from disagreeing on where "altruism" begins which is either "never" or "when people do stuff without a direct "quid pro quo"

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Propaganda and other forms of conditioning can turn good people evil.quote>

But the question is what happens to a persons behavior when the choice is known to be life or death.  Must he go through with it?

quote>

This exact question pretty much sums up my concerns when it comes to dictatorships and fighting them from within the county.

best example the nazi regime, today many many people point their naked fingers on pretty much every german who didn't actively fight the nazi regime, claiming these folks passively supported it.

all because they just can't think of how ppl are willing to look away just for the sake of their own petty lives. my bet, 99% of those finger-pointing fellows would have acted the same, knowing it's about fighting and dieing or keeping one's mouth shut and hopefully live on.

so I guess, no matter how much you cater to your own believes, morals and the likes, I guess most people go and discard plenty of them upon faced with the choice of clinch to them and die or give up on them and live on.

there's, given how many billion humans lingered on earth the last couple thousand of years, a very limited number among them that actually went thus far as to face death rather than giving up on their own, selfcreated or implemented standards.

It might be a matter of self-preservation and a sane fear of death rather than being a whimp or a coward or whatever one (interestingly enough mostly outside observer) might call them.

but this all goes more or less to the adress of intraracial behavior.

it'll be a whole different point of view to discuss interracial human behavior. (EDIT: as this is an often neglected but yet vast part of human behavior; the way "we" act in relation to our non-human environment, be it fauna or flora, all to often shows a funny yet sad antologism to what we set a moral standard for ourselves. maybe the most drastic way is shown in animal cruelty (incl hunting for the fun of it; nothing against hunting for population regulation, anti-threat programs or even to gain access to food)

for this, I've stumbled over a fantastic, summarizing statement in a national-geographic-like show some 2 weeks ago:

"Earth is 4.3 billion years old. considering this, mankind has just dropped in at the party a couple of minutes ago but already claims this party is theirs only."

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Propaganda and other forms of conditioning can turn good people evil.quote>

But the question is what happens to a persons behavior when the choice is known to be life or death.  Must he go through with it?

quote>

This exact question pretty much sums up my concerns when it comes to dictatorships and fighting them from within the county.

best example the nazi regime, today many many people point their naked fingers on pretty much every german who didn't actively fight the nazi regime, claiming these folks passively supported it.

all because they just can't think of how ppl are willing to look away just for the sake of their own petty lives. my bet, 99% of those finger-pointing fellows would have acted the same, knowing it's about fighting and dieing or keeping one's mouth shut and hopefully live on.

so I guess, no matter how much you cater to your own believes, morals and the likes, I guess most people go and discard plenty of them upon faced with the choice of clinch to them and die or give up on them and live on.

there's, given how many billion humans lingered on earth the last couple thousand of years, a very limited number among them that actually went thus far as to face death rather than giving up on their own, selfcreated or implemented standards.

It might be a matter of self-preservation and a sane fear of death rather than being a whimp or a coward or whatever one (interestingly enough mostly outside observer) might call them.

but this all goes more or less to the adress of intraracial behavior.

it'll be a whole different point of view to discuss interracial human behavior. (EDIT: as this is an often neglected but yet vast part of human behavior; the way "we" act in relation to our non-human environment, be it fauna or flora, all to often shows a funny yet sad antologism to what we set a moral standard for ourselves. maybe the most drastic way is shown in animal cruelty (incl hunting for the fun of it; nothing against hunting for population regulation, anti-threat programs or even to gain access to food)

for this, I've stumbled over a fantastic, summarizing statement in a national-geographic-like show some 2 weeks ago:

"Earth is 4.3 billion years old. considering this, mankind has just dropped in at the party a couple of minutes ago but already claims this party is theirs only."