Humanity is inherently good and becomes selfish

[PatrThom]

What if you never punished your children when they hit each other, only when they made enough noise about it to inconvenience you?

Ah, I see what you're saying. Children look to their surroundings to gauge their behavior. Whatever reinforcement they receive will shape their development. So a child who is consistently praised for putting away his toys will gain satisfaction from doing so, while another child who soothes his sadness by punching his younger sibling will develop schadenfreude. It's even possible a child may be "rewarded" by inanimate objects, such as finishing a level in Peggle. The brain gets tickled all over by that display and says, "We're going to do that again!" and suddenly your 5yr-old is playing 3hrs of Peggle a day instead of doing his homework. Similar behavior has been well-documented in lab animals.

But worse, I suppose, is the child who grows up with no consistent reinforcement (i.e., allowed to "get away" with too much and/or do whatever they want so long as it doesn't make too much noise). This child will learn the basics (stoves are dangerous, food and water are required, don't bother the dog while he is eating), but miss out on more advanced concepts (cooperation, structure/planning, compassion), the ones that relate most to interaction. After all, if a child "learns" that people don't care what he does, then he won't either.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

I think all people are inherently capable of immense good and wicked evil. I also think that everyone is selfish to some degree.

Well, "capable" here is a rather broad term, don't you think? We're all capable of so many things... but what about tendency?

Ah, I see what you're saying. Children look to their surroundings to gauge their behavior. Whatever reinforcement they receive will shape their development. So a child who is consistently praised for putting away his toys will gain satisfaction from doing so, while another child who soothes his sadness by punching his younger sibling will develop schadenfreude. It's even possible a child may be "rewarded" by inanimate objects, such as finishing a level in Peggle. The brain gets tickled all over by that display and says, "We're going to do that again!" and suddenly your 5yr-old is playing 3hrs of Peggle a day instead of doing his homework. Similar behavior has been well-documented in lab animals.

But worse, I suppose, is the child who grows up with no consistent reinforcement (i.e., allowed to "get away" with too much and/or do whatever they want so long as it doesn't make too much noise). This child will learn the basics (stoves are dangerous, food and water are required, don't bother the dog while he is eating), but miss out on more advanced concepts (cooperation, structure/planning, compassion), the ones that relate most to interaction. After all, if a child "learns" that people don't care what he does, then he won't either.

--Patrick

Eh, I suppose so, though you put it much kinder than I would have. You had to teach the child to put away the toys, you have to be consistent with praise when it does so. You probably didn't teach the child to punch, and you didn't interfere with what he learned from doing so. The former is behavioral manipulation, the latter is untainted natural development. People CAN be good if it is drilled into them and there is a stick to go with the carrot. Sometimes only the spectre of a stick and carrot works too - organized religion has been doing it for years.

 

[strawman]

If you don't make that concerted effort to teach "don't hit," "share your toys," "be nice," the child defaults to its natural state: evil. Lying, prejudiced, defiant, high-seeking, larcenous, murderous little sociopaths.

If that is true, gas, then you have to assume that the vast majority of the worlds parents are doing a good job, which I know you believe to be untrue.

A child's natural state is not one of evil, nor sociopathy. It may be that some children do tend more toward that side than the other, but then some tend to the other side than evil.

In other words, you can't simply assume that uncorrected every child would end up bad.

 

[GasBandit]

If that is true, gas, then you have to assume that the vast majority of the worlds parents are doing a good job, which I know you believe to be untrue.

A child's natural state is not one of evil, nor sociopathy. It may be that some children do tend more toward that side than the other, but then some tend to the other side than evil.

In other words, you can't simply assume that uncorrected every child would end up bad.

I'm of the opinion they would. I'm also of the opinion it'd be a fun experiment to set up.

As for the vast majority of parents, I wouldn't say they are doing a *good* job, but I would say they're meeting bare minimums. At least teaching that there are negative consequences to going feral. The complete failures are the exception, but they illustrate the default.

 

[strawman]

But there, again, it becomes murky, because so called bad parents are simply sociopaths themselves, so they are teaching their children to be the same.

I still don't think you could run the experiment at all, but that if you did you'd find inconsistent results, because I've seen some great adults come out from under really terrible parenting, and vice versa.

 

[GasBandit]

But there, again, it becomes murky, because so called bad parents are simply sociopaths themselves, so they are teaching their children to be the same.

I still don't think you could run the experiment at all, but that if you did you'd find inconsistent results, because I've seen some great adults come out from under really terrible parenting, and vice versa.

The experiment would be to kidnap 1000 2- year olds and lock them in an arena for 20 years, air-dropping in easy-to-open food every day.

 

[strawman]

I don't think that would work. My 18 month old is already very socially programmed. As I said earlier, kids learn tons before being weaned and walking.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't think that would work. My 18 month old is already very socially programmed. As I said earlier, kids learn tons before being weaned and walking.

Yeah, but 20 years of anarchy will unprogram that, I think. It's easy to keep a routine when there are huge people enforcing it around you every minute of every hour you are awake.

 

[strawman]

But then are you actually discerning natural tendencies, or simply their reaction to having to grow up in such a confusing environment?

 

[GasBandit]

But then are you actually discerning natural tendencies, or simply their reaction to having to grow up in such a confusing environment?

There we're having a disagreement about what constitutes baseline for inherent traits. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that the baseline should include societal programming from parents, whereas I'm saying that the true, natural tendencies are revealed when such things are removed.

Heck, I'll even go one further. Do it with 1000 10-year-olds. 20 years locked in an arena with daily food drops and no outside contact. Go on and tell me you aren't curious to see what you find when you unlock the gates in 2033.

 

[strawman]

Wasn't that the hypothesis of lord of the flies?

 

[Jax]

Gas, I do think you need to make a sound distinction between selfish and evil, because based on this and your other posts it seems like you just lump them together. Being selfish is not the same as being evil: a child that is not actively taught how to behave will not by definition become a criminal/murderer/etc.

 

[GasBandit]

Gas, I do think you need to make a sound distinction between selfish and evil, because based on this and your other posts it seems like you just lump them together. Being selfish is not the same as being evil: a child that is not actively taught how to behave will not by definition become a criminal/murderer/etc.

It depends on HOW selfish we're talking about. I assert that the level to which a human will devolve if left unchecked will fall into the category most people classify as evil. Though really, when you get down to it, "evil" is just a word.

Wasn't that the hypothesis of lord of the flies?

Well, I wouldn't say Lord of the Flies had a "hypothesis" in and of itself, but it was the premise - a stranded group of children turns feral and cruel when left bereft of adult influences. But that situation is probably much harsher than the conditions I posit - food, shelter and such still being taken for granted in my setup.

 

[drawn_inward]

Gas, I do think you need to make a sound distinction between selfish and evil, because based on this and your other posts it seems like you just lump them together. Being selfish is not the same as being evil: a child that is not actively taught how to behave will not by definition become a criminal/murderer/etc.

I think being selfish is in the spectrum of evil. It's thinking of your self above others.

Also, there are some studies that link show that criminal behavior has epigenetic markers. So, perhaps some folks are wired to be 'evil'. They still have the environmental stimuli that could push them either way though.

 

[GasBandit]

I think being selfish is in the spectrum of evil. It's thinking of your self above others.

But a certain amount of that trait is necessary. It's what drives you to improve your lot in life. You study hard to get a degree to get a better job to make more money to have a more comfortable lifestyle. It's the same impulse, channeled for "good" (although even if you succeed you are still called evil by some unless you allow the fruits of your labor to be confiscated in the name of those who didn't make the decision to channel their selfishness positively).

 

[MindDetective]

But a certain amount of that trait is necessary. It's what drives you to improve your lot in life. You study hard to get a degree to get a better job to make more money to have a more comfortable lifestyle. It's the same impulse, channeled for "good" (although even if you succeed you are still called evil by some unless you allow the fruits of your labor to be confiscated in the name of those who didn't make the decision to channel their selfishness positively).

None of those goals habe any evolutionary significance and all are learned. Evolutionarily, you needed only to find foods, avoid threats to your life, mate, and rear offspring. Prosocial behaviors enhance survival for 3 out of those 4, arguably all 4, and antisocial behaviors enhance survival for only 1 or 2 of those. In conclusion, see my previous post.

 

[GasBandit]

None of those goals habe any evolutionary significance and all are learned. Evolutionarily, you needed only to find foods, avoid threats to your life, mate, and rear offspring. Prosocial behaviors enhance survival for 3 out of those 4, arguably all 4, and antisocial behaviors enhance survival for only 1 or 2 of those. In conclusion, see my previous post.

Are you making the claim that social behavior is ingrained upon humans in their biological makeup because it has evolutionary-level benefits?

In other words, that Idiocracy was right?

 

[MindDetective]

Are you making the claim that social behavior is ingrained upon humans in their biological makeup because it has evolutionary-level benefits?

In other words, that Idiocracy was right?

Yes (although note my comments on the flexibility of that biological makeup), but that was not the claim of Idiocracy. Their claim was that modern-day settings would select for new traits that specifically lowered IQ.

 

[strawman]

In conclusion, see my previous post.

It was too hard. Can you modify it so it uses only the ten hundred most commonly used words? This editor can help:

http://splasho.com/upgoer5/

 

[GasBandit]

Yes (although note my comments on the flexibility of that biological makeup), but that was not the claim of Idiocracy. Their claim was that modern-day settings would select for new traits that specifically lowered IQ.

Do you disagree that stupid people are having more babies?

 

[MindDetective]

It was too hard. Can you modify it so it uses only the ten hundred most commonly used words? This editor can help:

http://splasho.com/upgoer5/

We could question about what one means by "good" but what you're probably talking about is "for-group" acts, which is a less confusing word for stranger helping. We probably have come to be "for-group" towards our "family" as well as our girlfriends and boyfriends, all of which I think can be understood in different ways. Family could mean one's children, uncles and aunts, person next door, town... or it might just be one's self in the cases of people that recognize no family. Usually, most people probably do join family-like people quickly. That joining is important to finding a boyfriend or girlfriend, keeping them around, and raising kids well. "For-group" acts (in humans and in other animals) help an animal and their kids to live by sharing guards against bad guys, finding food, care-taking of young, and making babies. So I would say that yes, we are "good" on the inside in that sense of the word. But I think there is a flip side to this money. "For-group" acts are best when given to one's family and one's boyfriend or girlfriend but can hurt when given to a stranger or a bad guy (such as a bad guy from another town, a person next door that might take one's girlfriend or boyfriend, or an bad guy that might kill one's family). So I would say that we also have inside us the chance to be "against-group" towards those that we see as not our family or our boyfriend or girlfriend. This makes us very much in-group or out-group in which we will be "good" towards loved ones and "bad" towards the "other people". Both of these ways, I think, are inside us. That said, I think there is some ways we can change what family and "other people" mean. This is why people can be happy about their team but mean to other teams, why people in power stick together and point fingers at each other at the same time, and why some people can hate "the man" while believing that all people are important (or some such). People are just changing their in-group/out-group ideas in very different ways. After all, what is considered "other" is no longer people outside the town. We left towns behind a while ago. But we are very easy to change along that space because it is something that probably is inside each of us.[DOUBLEPOST=1360110551][/DOUBLEPOST]

Do you disagree that stupid people are having more babies?

It isn't really relevant to the discussion, since we aren't talking about IQ. And even if we were, that is not how trait selection works. After all, you have the ability get gigantically, disgustingly fat but that doesn't mean all of your children will be disgustingly fat. Your weight is influenced by your genetics, but it is a flexible system, influenced by one's environment.

 

[PatrThom]

TIL: GasBandit hates the rest of humanity almost as much as he hates Apple, and paints a picture of every human being who is not himself as a threat to his personal well-being and safety...if not now, then later.

I suppose this experiment would be easier to perform on chickens, or turtles, since animals spawned from eggs are generally ready to go once they hatch. It would be extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to be able to isolate human children after they are able to provide for their basic needs, but before receiving substantial programming. Even those early acts of provision such as nursing and bathing develop certain attachments and tendencies. If there are siblings involved, the rate of interactions increases, and the neural net coalesces that much faster. Make a lot of noise and your needs will be met. The darker spot is where you need to suck. Hands can be used to grasp things. Clothes keep you warmer. And on and on. Setting up the experiment without introducing bias quickly becomes a tremendous headache (to say nothing of the ethics violations).

I realize that the point Gas is making is that all children start off bad, and it is only by the fortune of the intervention of the rest of society that they are placed upon the right path (whether or not they ultimately choose to follow it), and that even those who strive for correctness may be pushed off that path by a significant enough occurrence sometime in their lives. To that, I would also add that there is the possibility that a person may grow up thinking that there is good in all Humanity, but a significant event (or even a series of less-significant ones) may erode that optimism to the point that his thoughts may turn the other direction, never to return. To that I say, "Never say never." The human brain is plastic, and is quite able to adapt to new outside influences, assuming it is permitted to contemplate them.

Rather than putting everyone on a line like pH, we might instead need to make a 2D plot of all these behaviors, with one axis ranging from Good <-> Evil, and the other ranging from Beneficial <-> Harmful to truly get where they all stand, so we can find out where to peg all the I-Like-Helping-Others altruists v. the I-Like-Helping-Myself sociopaths.

--Patrick

 

[Bowielee]

There's a hell of a lot of usage of words without operational definitions going on here.

 

[PatrThom]

Do you disagree that stupid people are having more babies?

If they are, the fact that stupid people tend to self-remove should balance everything out.

--Patrick

 

[bhamv3]

Man, I'd hate to be one of the kids in Gas's experiment.

Not because of the terrible psychological issues that would result, but because I'd've had food and shelter provided for me all through my childhood, and then suddenly a bunch of people in white coats come in and say "I'm making a note here, huge success" and then telling me that from now on I have to work for a living.

Screw that.

 

[GasBandit]

We could question about what one means by "good" but what you're probably talking about is "for-group" acts, which is a less confusing word for stranger helping. We probably have come to be "for-group" towards our "family" as well as our girlfriends and boyfriends, all of which I think can be understood in different ways. Family could mean one's children, uncles and aunts, person next door, town... or it might just be one's self in the cases of people that recognize no family. Usually, most people probably do join family-like people quickly. That joining is important to finding a boyfriend or girlfriend, keeping them around, and raising kids well. "For-group" acts (in humans and in other animals) help an animal and their kids to live by sharing guards against bad guys, finding food, care-taking of young, and making babies. So I would say that yes, we are "good" on the inside in that sense of the word. But I think there is a flip side to this money. "For-group" acts are best when given to one's family and one's boyfriend or girlfriend but can hurt when given to a stranger or a bad guy (such as a bad guy from another town, a person next door that might take one's girlfriend or boyfriend, or an bad guy that might kill one's family). So I would say that we also have inside us the chance to be "against-group" towards those that we see as not our family or our boyfriend or girlfriend. This makes us very much in-group or out-group in which we will be "good" towards loved ones and "bad" towards the "other people". Both of these ways, I think, are inside us. That said, I think there is some ways we can change what family and "other people" mean. This is why people can be happy about their team but mean to other teams, why people in power stick together and point fingers at each other at the same time, and why some people can hate "the man" while believing that all people are important (or some such). People are just changing their in-group/out-group ideas in very different ways. After all, what is considered "other" is no longer people outside the town. We left towns behind a while ago. But we are very easy to change along that space because it is something that probably is inside each of us.

OH GOD I CAN'T

It isn't really relevant to the discussion, since we aren't talking about IQ. And even if we were, that is not how trait selection works. After all, you have the ability get gigantically, disgustingly fat but that doesn't mean all of your children will be disgustingly fat. Your weight is influenced by your genetics, but it is a flexible system, influenced by one's environment.

Wait wait wait.. are you now saying that intelligence is determined by environment? I suppose it is to an extent (educational opportunities and whatnot), but am I mistaken or are you practically excluding intelligence from genetic heredity?

TIL: GasBandit hates the rest of humanity almost as much as he hates Apple, and paints a picture of every human being who is not himself as a threat to his personal well-being and safety...if not now, then later.

TODAY you learned this? And not just a danger to me, but to themselves and each other as well.

I suppose this experiment would be easier to perform on chickens, or turtles, since animals spawned from eggs are generally ready to go once they hatch. It would be extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to be able to isolate human children after they are able to provide for their basic needs, but before receiving substantial programming. Even those early acts of provision such as nursing and bathing develop certain attachments and tendencies. If there are siblings involved, the rate of interactions increases, and the neural net coalesces that much faster. Make a lot of noise and your needs will be met. The darker spot is where you need to suck. Hands can be used to grasp things. Clothes keep you warmer. And on and on. Setting up the experiment without introducing bias quickly becomes a tremendous headache (to say nothing of the ethics violations).

I'm confident enough in the results of the removal of institutionalized social pressure on humans that I am convinced that catching them before programming isn't necessary - they will most often revert. Hell, even more adults would than not, I'd wager, given enough time away from the threat of the metaphorical social stick.

I realize that the point Gas is making is that all children start off bad, and it is only by the fortune of the intervention of the rest of society that they are placed upon the right path (whether or not they ultimately choose to follow it), and that even those who strive for correctness may be pushed off that path by a significant enough occurrence sometime in their lives. To that, I would also add that there is the possibility that a person may grow up thinking that there is good in all Humanity, but a significant event (or even a series of less-significant ones) may erode that optimism to the point that his thoughts may turn the other direction, never to return. To that I say, "Never say never." The human brain is plastic, and is quite able to adapt to new outside influences, assuming it is permitted to contemplate them.

I must not have been communicating very well, because I was trying to assert what you said in your second sentence as well, except for the never part. You can turn a bad guy good, I suppose it's just a question as to if it's worth the immense time and effort when backsliding is so easy and likely. It's fighting uphill vs coasting downhill. But not impossible.

Rather than putting everyone on a line like pH, we might instead need to make a 2D plot of all these behaviors, with one axis ranging from Good <-> Evil, and the other ranging from Beneficial <-> Harmful to truly get where they all stand, so we can find out where to peg all the I-Like-Helping-Others altruists v. the I-Like-Helping-Myself sociopaths.

--Patrick

Or even Good <-> Evil and Ordered <-> Chaotic? heh. I have a hard time imagining an evil altruist or a benevolent sociopath. The only example I could think of is the NPC in that Game Boy Zelda game (Link's Awakening, I think) that maliciously increases your maximum carrying capacity, laughing maniacally "Now look at all that stuff you have to carry around!"[DOUBLEPOST=1360133525][/DOUBLEPOST]

If they are, the fact that stupid people tend to self-remove should balance everything out.

--Patrick

But thanks to recent advances in stem cell research and the fine work of Doctors Karinsky and Altschuler, they'll be back on their feet with full reproductive function in no time.

Man, I'd hate to be one of the kids in Gas's experiment.

Not because of the terrible psychological issues that would result, but because I'd've had food and shelter provided for me all through my childhood, and then suddenly a bunch of people in white coats come in and say "I'm making a note here, huge success" and then telling me that from now on I have to work for a living.

Screw that.

I know! It'd be delicious, wouldn't it? BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA

It's like, The Truman Show! What'd he DO when he left the studio? How did he survive?

 

[MindDetective]

From one extreme to the next. Intelligence is probably determined by both genes and environment. This is just one reason why many low IQ couples having lots of children does not remove high intelligence from the gene pool.

 

[GasBandit]

From one extreme to the next. Intelligence is probably determined by both genes and environment. This is just one reason why many low IQ couples having lots of children does not remove high intelligence from the gene pool.

Do you think malevolence is similar, or do you think it entirely environmental?

 

[MindDetective]

Do you think malevolence is similar, or do you think it entirely environmental?

As I stated before, I think towards people that are possible threats, we are inherently biased towards distrust. This can be fostered into malevolence or squashed entirely. We also have an inherent bias towards kindness to those we consider our own, which also can be fostered into a whole town (or total strangers on your favorite football team) or squashed entirely. But the bias is a selected for, biologically inherent trait. The environment shapes that bias.

 

[GasBandit]

As I stated before, I think towards people that are possible threats, we are inherently biased towards distrust. This can be fostered into malevolence or squashed entirely. We also have an inherent bias towards kindness to those we consider our own, which also can be fostered into a whole town (or total strangers on your favorite football team) or squashed entirely. But the bias is a selected for, biologically inherent trait. The environment shapes that bias.

So coupling this with the observed effect of technology to progressively isolate people from each other more and more, would you say that there's a tendency for "our own" to shrink while "not us" grows?

 

[Bowielee]

So coupling this with the observed effect of technology to progressively isolate people from each other more and more, would you say that there's a tendency for "our own" to shrink while "not us" grows?

I would say that this observed effect hasn't been fully researched enough to difinitively say if this is, in fact, true.

 

[strawman]

So coupling this with the observed effect of technology to progressively isolate people from each other more and more, would you say that there's a tendency for "our own" to shrink while "not us" grows?

Could be the opposite.

Depends on how much face to face interaction is required for one to build community.

We've done things for friends here we wouldn't do for some people we meet daily face to face, so I'd say that physical presence may help or hinder, but doesn't necessarily limit community.

 

[MindDetective]

Yeah, pretty tough to say at this point. It is a possibility, though.

 

[PatrThom]

Could be the opposite.

Depends on how much face to face interaction is required for one to build community.

We've done things for friends here we wouldn't do for some people we meet daily face to face, so I'd say that physical presence may help or hinder, but doesn't necessarily limit community.

I would posit that the level of our willingness to help another hinges on the amount of respect that other is able to generate in us. If that is the case, actual physical contact would be less important than how much that other has "touched" you, if you see what I'm saying. Likewise, to find out someone you trusted is a cheat/scoundrel/liar doesn't change the intensity of the feeling, it just reverses the polarity.

--Patrick

 

[LittleSin]

The World Is A Vampire

Built to drain~

I'll play, Charlie Don't Surf