Export thread

You are not selfish or wicked or evil or unkind. I understand why you choose many of those things though.

I do. I've been there. I've done those things.

I love you all. I want to love you all.

I'm so glad you're all here.

I just had a long discussion in which I argued for over an hour that human beings are inherently good and kind and loving and selfless. I did not win over my friend, who thinks we are naturally selfish and learn to be good.

But I think I'm right. S'good to see you.

How much have you had to drink?

Ravenpoe said:

How much have you had to drink?

Click to expand...

I bet he started off with a good amount

No, no. It was a long and wearying conversation because I couldn't seem to make headway. I legitimately believe people are good and want to be good. I was surprised and saddened to learn that my friend thought people were naturally selfish.

I just wanted to affirm publicly that I love you all and I have the deepest belief that you and I and everyone is inherently good.[DOUBLEPOST=1359789049][/DOUBLEPOST]But seriously I also thought about that episode of Community and had a good laugh, DarkAudit

I currently enjoy being loving/kind/selfless/inherently good more than I enjoy causing suffering/misery/anguish/terror. I suppose if my upbringing had been different, things might have gone the other way around, but I have not yet been given sufficient cause to change.

--Patrick

Evolutionarily speaking, your friend is right. Just look at any child who hasn't learned the niceties of society. They are selfish creatures, who are looking out only for their survival. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that goodness and kindness aren't great things that society has ingrained in us. We may not be born good, but we have great propensity for it.

It's a difficult argument to have, because what looks good can be mere selfishness (I take care of my children now, and they'll take care of me later) and what looks selfish can be mere goodness (my kids may think I make them do their homework so that I look like a good parent, but I'm doing it to ingrain the habit of hard work which will serve them well as adults).

So much depends on ones perspective, that you could have nearly been arguing the same thing, but unable to see that because you both perceive the world differently.

Personally I believe I'll be happier in life if I assume good until proven selfish.

You might be interested in this:
.
It's about a study on whether babies know the difference between good and bad and what they prefer.

I'm sure MindDetective could offer some good info on this too.

I'll come back to this later. Tagging it for now.

stienman said:

Personally I believe I'll be happier in life if I assume good until proven selfish.

Click to expand...

It's called "Tit for tat," and it repeatedly rises to the top as the best strategy for situations with any sort of social component (e.g., the Prisoner's Dilemma).

For people who want a serious treatment of this, you may want to visit Radiolab for their Good Show, where they explore what makes us "Good," and their Bad Show, where Evil gets the same treatment.

So there's about 2hrs of edutainment. Especially interested in hearing what MD has to say as well.

--Patrick

I swear I just read an article about this within the last few days. My personal feeling is that most people do seemingly selfless things for selfish reasons.

WasabiPoptart said:

seemingly selfless things for selfish reasons.

Click to expand...

An interesting point, since, "I just do the right thing because it makes me feel better as a human being" is at heart a selfish statement. ("...because it benefits me.")

--Patrick

It's the reward that matters. I feel good about myself, my peers see me as a better person, someone is grateful for what I have done...push the right lever and get a pellet.

Alright, I'll try to make this quick, since I should be grading.

We could debate about what one means by "good" but what you're probably talking about is prosocial behavior, which is a less loaded term for altruism. We probably have evolved to be prosocial towards our "kin" as well as our "mates", both of which I think are flexible terms. Kin could mean one's children, extended family, neighbor, tribe, etc. or it might just be one's self in the cases of people that recognize no kin. As a general rule, most people probably do bond (or attach) to familial-like people inherently, though. That attachment is likely relevant to attracting mates, keeping mates around, and raising offspring successfully. Arguably, prosocial behavior (in humans and in other species) helps promote the long-term survival of a species by provided pooled defenses, resource gathering, care-taking of young, and mating opportunities. So I would say that yes, we are inherently "good" in that sense of the word.

But I think there is a flip side to this coin. Prosocial behavior is most beneficial when applied towards one's kin and one's mate but can be harmful when applied towards a stranger or a potential threat (such as a competitor from another tribe, a neighbor that might steal one's mate, or an intruder that might kill one's kin). So I would argue that we also have a propensity to be antisocial towards those that we view as not our kin or our mate. This creates a strong in-group/out-group polarization in which we will react positively ("good") towards loved ones and negatively ("bad") towards the "other". Both of these traits, I think, are inherent and selected for.

That said, I think there is some flexibility in defining one's kin and the "other". This is why people can be extreme football fans for a specific team, why political parties can both cohere and point fingers so readily, and why some people can dislike "the man" while simultaneously believing that all people are connected/worthwhile (or some such). People are just stretching or shrinking their in-group/out-group definitions in dramatically different ways. After all, what is considered "other" is no longer people outside the tribe. We left tribes behind a while ago. But we are very easy to sway along that dimension because it is a trait that probably is rooted deeply in each of us.[DOUBLEPOST=1359844638][/DOUBLEPOST]By the way, I wrote that post before watching Shakey 's video. nice to know Yale researchers and I agree. I guess I'll count them as kin.

MindDetective said:

I would argue that we also have a propensity to be antisocial towards those that we view as not our kin or our mate. This creates a strong in-group/out-group polarization in which we will react positively ("good") towards loved ones and negatively ("bad") towards the "other".

Click to expand...

Oh, good. So it's not just Halforums.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Oh, good. So it's not just Halforums.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

No, it is also StackExchange.

I'm Neutral Good with Chaotic tendencies.

I think it's dangerous to label people as inherently "good" or inherently "evil".

It would be more apt to say that we have the capacity to be either. If there's anything I've learned, its that people are never usually aware of how capable they are of committing both good and bad acts as shown through research and experimentation. It's easier to point to magical words that reduce human beings to simple descriptors than to actually face the truth that most people have the capacity to react negatively and positively given the right situations.

I think it has to do with the social contract.

In a social, collective environment, we are more likely to be willing to give up immediate personal gain for the benefit of the collective. Within reason, of course.

If we're on our own though, all bets are off, and we look out for number one.

"Piggy was... so full of pride in his contribution to the good of society, that he helped to fetch wood."

Human beings are slavering monsters, barely held in check by a social contract which has built an unstable tower ever higher into the heavens, and one day it will all come crashing down. As one must teach a child not to hit, so are we indoctrinated into what makes a society possible. But to paraphrase the Joker, we're all just one really bad day away from snapping back to our true, uninhibited selves.

GasBandit said:

Human beings are slavering monsters, barely held in check by a social contract which has built an unstable tower ever higher into the heavens, and one day it will all come crashing down. As one must teach a child not to hit, so are we indoctrinated into what makes a society possible. But to paraphrase the Joker, we're all just one really bad day away from snapping back to our true, uninhibited selves.

Click to expand...

So Hobbes was correct in his assesment of the state of nature. Bellum omnium contra omnes:

Thomas Hobbes said:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Click to expand...

As I understand, you have been quite vocal in your defence of individual liberties. But if man is such a vile creature as you describe, then would it not be unwise to extend more freedoms to him, lest he use them to revert to the baseness that is his nature? Would not the social contract, backed by a strong central authority to punish miscreants, be a preferable arrangement?

One would assume that evolution would apply on the somewhat macro scale as well. So in a situation where humanity is spread thin across the countryside, evolution would select the independent, savage, antisocial individuals. In situations where large numbers of people are forced together regularly, it would be the gregarious, tolerant, social individuals who will survive.

When spread thin, the social ones will fade since they get no support/reinforcement.
When packed tightly, the antisocial ones will fade because the social ones will gang up and eliminate them.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

One would assume that evolution would apply on the somewhat macro scale as well. So in a situation where humanity is spread thin across the countryside, evolution would select the independent, savage, antisocial individuals. In situations where large numbers of people are forced together regularly, it would be the gregarious, tolerant, social individuals who will survive.

When spread thin, the social ones will fade since they get no support/reinforcement.
When packed tightly, the antisocial ones will fade because the social ones will gang up and eliminate them.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

I think I'll try that as a variable in some of my research.

TommiR said:

As I understand, you have been quite vocal in your defence of individual liberties. But if man is such a vile creature as you describe, then would it not be unwise to extend more freedoms to him, lest he use them to revert to the baseness that is his nature? Would not the social contract, backed by a strong central authority to punish miscreants, be a preferable arrangement?

Click to expand...

You're forgetting also hate people. I also think we should remove all the warning labels off of dangerous things, and let the gene pool improve itself.

Seriously though - it's a balancing act, and one I feel is self-balancing. There's the upward push of humanity's desire to climb to better things, balanced against their bestial nature to kill everything they can't fuck. I favor extremely limited government because government itself is comprised of people (as Shepherd Book observes, themselves largely ungoverned), and wielding power often turns these people into tyrants of one flavor or another - be they self-serving or ubernannies. In other words, yes, human beings are inherently evil, largely uncorrected, and are able to do more evil the more power they have, and thus, should be trusted with as little power over each other as can be had without devolving into the anarchy that Hobbes describes.

I keep delaying responding to this thread but I will be back tonight hopefully.

PatrThom said:

One would assume that evolution would apply on the somewhat macro scale as well. So in a situation where humanity is spread thin across the countryside, evolution would select the independent, savage, antisocial individuals. In situations where large numbers of people are forced together regularly, it would be the gregarious, tolerant, social individuals who will survive.

When spread thin, the social ones will fade since they get no support/reinforcement.
When packed tightly, the antisocial ones will fade because the social ones will gang up and eliminate them.

Click to expand...

Sounds convincing. But I believe an argument to the contrary can also be made.

When humans were still spread very thin on the ground, in stone age tribes consisting of a couple of hundred or so individuals at most, the survival of any single individual was contingent upon the support and protection he received from his fellows. Antisocial, treacherous, or down-right dangerous behavior directed at others would presumably have decreased the support the offending party received in the future, and in extreme cases could result in banishment from the tribe. Which would have been tantamount to a death sentence, as a flintstone spear made for a poor defence against a cave bear or a smilodon. Co-operation was necessary for survival, and given the low level of sophistication in conflict resolution mechanisms, such things as honor and reputation mattered for much (nowadays a person is given a fair shake in a court of law even if they are the scum of the earth and everybody knows it). Those traits are still in evidence among primitive societies today; I seem to recall how comparing results cross-culture in an anonymous dictator game (or some similar game, but it was anonymous), it was found that some mongolian nomads scored the highest points for altruism, though for the life of me I can't find the source.

Also, competition for resources has been identified as a major cause of conflict. A situation where there are fewer people around would leave more resources per person, thereby presumably diminishing the relevance of this particular cause and negatively affecting the cost-benefit analysis of the aggressor. The more people you have, the more competition there is, with a Malthusian catastrophy as the extreme (if outdated) example.

As to the modern condition where people are packed tight, I do agree that public (noticed) anti-social behavior is a very significant disadvantage. Witness the uproar over Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. But if we go with altruism, being 'good' and 'playing nice', then if those were the qualities that yielded an advantage in today's society, shouldn't we expect to see them in abundance in the people who are most successful? Because I'm not sure we do, or rather we might see their PR, but the reality might well be quite different.

GasBandit said:

Seriously though - it's a balancing act, and one I feel is self-balancing. There's the upward push of humanity's desire to climb to better things, balanced against their bestial nature to kill everything they can't fuck. I favor extremely limited government because government itself is comprised of people (as Shepherd Book observes, themselves largely ungoverned), and wielding power often turns these people into tyrants of one flavor or another - be they self-serving or ubernannies. In other words, yes, human beings are inherently evil, largely uncorrected, and are able to do more evil the more power they have, and thus, should be trusted with as little power over each other as can be had without devolving into the anarchy that Hobbes describes.

Click to expand...

If I may, I'd like to ask a couple of questions to clarify.

You mentioned a self-balancing act between the evil nature of man, and 'the upward push of humanity's desire to climb to better things'. Do you mean that this upward push is something like a communal sentiment for social justice, indicating that man is not thoroughly wicked? Or is it some lesser form of Hobbes' social contract, where a group of selfish and vile creatures agree to mutually limit their range of options in order to gain a measure protection from the depredations of each other? Or did you mean something else?

Would your night watchman state have any mechanisms to address social, economic, and political evils in the interests of internal stability, or would it be left to the kindness of the elites to see to the less fortunate?

Fuck I am having a rough night and despite thinking about this all day, I just can't muster up the wherewithal to write my response.

I will. Probably. One day. Hopefully tomorrow.

TommiR said:

Sounds convincing. But I believe an argument to the contrary can also be made.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like your statements support my postulate rather than decrying it.

--Patrick

TommiR said:

If I may, I'd like to ask a couple of questions to clarify.

You mentioned a self-balancing act between the evil nature of man, and 'the upward push of humanity's desire to climb to better things'. Do you mean that this upward push is something like a communal sentiment for social justice, indicating that man is not thoroughly wicked? Or is it some lesser form of Hobbes' social contract, where a group of selfish and vile creatures agree to mutually limit their range of options in order to gain a measure protection from the depredations of each other? Or did you mean something else?

Would your night watchman state have any mechanisms to address social, economic, and political evils in the interests of internal stability, or would it be left to the kindness of the elites to see to the less fortunate?

Click to expand...

Even people like to live in houses and have electricity. That's not something you can have when you're all hunkered down in different caves throwing rocks at anyone who comes close. So the inherent evil nature of humanity can be (and admittedly is very often) overcome because bigger things can be achieved with cooperation.

See, I'm not saying every individual person is evil. By "inherently," I mean they start out that way and if left to their own devices tend toward that end of the spectrum. We do teach our children not to hit, and ingrain the social patterns of cooperation and altruism into them as a socially evolved mechanism to further society. Some people do a better job at that programming than others. But the benefits of cooperative society are such that it's usually worth it to conquer our baser instincts, but they're still in there. Lurking. Waiting for a reason to manifest... or at least for enough societal power to be concentrated in your own person that the consequences of being evil don't mean losing the benefits of society.

I think we need to clarify something. When people say "left to their own devices" are they saying letting children fend for themselves once they are able to walk?

Because otherwise it sounds a lot like an impossible hypothetical situation. Raising children without teaching them anything is simply not possible. Every action you perform has a lesson and learning opportunity, and children are biological learning machines.

stienman said:

I think we need to clarify something. When people say "left to their own devices" are they saying letting children fend for themselves once they are able to walk?

Because otherwise it sounds a lot like an impossible hypothetical situation. Raising children without teaching them anything is simply not possible. Every action you perform has a lesson and learning opportunity, and children are biological learning machines.

Click to expand...

What if you never punished your children when they hit each other, only when they made enough noise about it to inconvenience you? What do they "learn" then? And for that matter, at what point did you teach that child to hit?

When I say "Left to their own devices," I mean left to learn for themselves without enforced training about not being antisocial, selfish, and violent. 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.

The World Is A Vampire

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

GasBandit said:

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

Click to expand...

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

drawn_inward said:

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

Click to expand...

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

PatrThom said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

stienman said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Jax said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Jax said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

drawn_inward said:

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

Click to expand...

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).

GasBandit said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

MindDetective said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

GasBandit said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

MindDetective said:

In conclusion, see my previous post.

Click to expand...

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/

MindDetective said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you disagree that stupid people are having more babies?

stienman said:

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/

Click to expand...

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]

GasBandit said:

Do you disagree that stupid people are having more babies?

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

GasBandit said:

Do you disagree that stupid people are having more babies?

Click to expand...

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

--Patrick

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.

MindDetective said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

PatrThom said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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]

PatrThom said:

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

--Patrick

Click to expand...

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.

bhamv3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

MindDetective said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

GasBandit said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MindDetective said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

GasBandit said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

GasBandit said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Charlie Don't Surf said:

The World Is A Vampire

Click to expand...

Built to drain~

I'll play, Charlie Don't Surf

PatrThom said:

I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like your statements support my postulate rather than decrying it.

Click to expand...

It's possible that I misunderstood your point as well. But my basic position is that co-operation, at least as far as individuals are concerned, is more important in smaller groups that are more widely dispersed, whereas with larger groups in closer proximity an individual might be more successful by being less altruistic, for instance through the Free Rider problem.

Basically, I think that in smaller groups the individual is best served through co-operating with other members, and by being mindful of their needs, and close proximity in general would increase interaction and foster stronger bonds. And with less such groups in a general area (spread thin), competition for resources is less intense and there is less need for conflict. When a population outgrows local resources, conflict is likely to ensue, and world history has seen several very violent migrations due to the original area of a people getting over-populated. Aggressive or treacherous conduct may serve well when there is extensive competition, and competition increases with population.

In a modern western society (large numbers of people and groups in an area), basic survival is pretty much guaranteed by the state through social security, law enforcement and so on, so there is no need for real co-operation anymore to secure survival. And if one wants to be really successful, altruism is IMO not the way to go, rather one would need to be ready to use their elbows and judiciously trample over people in their path as they climb their way up the ladder. I imagine the best traits to assist in this can be morally questionable.

GasBandit said:

Even people like to live in houses and have electricity. That's not something you can have when you're all hunkered down in different caves throwing rocks at anyone who comes close. So the inherent evil nature of humanity can be (and admittedly is very often) overcome because bigger things can be achieved with cooperation.

See, I'm not saying every individual person is evil. By "inherently," I mean they start out that way and if left to their own devices tend toward that end of the spectrum. We do teach our children not to hit, and ingrain the social patterns of cooperation and altruism into them as a socially evolved mechanism to further society. Some people do a better job at that programming than others. But the benefits of cooperative society are such that it's usually worth it to conquer our baser instincts, but they're still in there. Lurking. Waiting for a reason to manifest... or at least for enough societal power to be concentrated in your own person that the consequences of being evil don't mean losing the benefits of society.

Click to expand...

Okay. So viewing this through a carrot-and-stick approach, your view is that people will be drawn to self-moderate their behaviour and co-operate voluntarily through the realization that working together with others is likely to bring more potential benefits than not, and that there is little to no need for the big stick of government to enforce such co-operation. I hope I understood your position correctly.

Fair enough, I guess. Though I personally imagine such an arrangement has a big chance of resulting in a rather predatory society wracked with instability, as the haves will monopolise power and influence, and the have-nots will viciously compete, to improve their lot or to simply survive. This is assuming we're talking about a society of millions of people, many with no means to support themselves.

TommiR said:

Okay. So viewing this through a carrot-and-stick approach, your view is that people will be drawn to self-moderate their behaviour and co-operate voluntarily through the realization that working together with others is likely to bring more potential benefits than not, and that there is little to no need for the big stick of government to enforce such co-operation. I hope I understood your position correctly.

Fair enough, I guess. Though I personally imagine such an arrangement has a big chance of resulting in a rather predatory society wracked with instability, as the haves will monopolise power and influence, and the have-nots will viciously compete, to improve their lot or to simply survive. This is assuming we're talking about a society of millions of people, many with no means to support themselves.

Click to expand...

It when you start applying it to my political thought, you have to take into account I'm one of those guys who would rather starve free than be fed in chains. But I'm not an anarchist, government does fill a necessary role - it's just WAY overstepped its true utility. It should be there to enforce laws that keep us from directly harming or stealing from one another, and provide for mutual defense from invasion. But waaaaay further along the spectrum from that is where we are, in "bread and circuses" territory. This nation in particular was founded as an exercise in prosperity through personal liberty, to make economic mobility easy and attainable. That's the American dream - not the material house, car, dog and TV, but the concept that through dedication, intelligence, and taking advantage of the opportunities present you can get ahead by your own effort, without it being co-opted by a lord or other tyrant who would keep you a serf. There still needs to be a stick from government, yes... but it's anathema to the concept which gave rise to the American way of life for government to be deciding how to distribute the carrots. There is no scarier "have" than unchecked government.

GasBandit said:

I'm not an anarchist, government does fill a necessary role - it's just WAY overstepped its true utility. It should be there to enforce laws that keep us from directly harming or stealing from one another, and provide for mutual defense from invasion. But waaaaay further along the spectrum from that is where we are, in "bread and circuses" territory.
[...]
... but it's anathema to the concept which gave rise to the American way of life for government to be deciding how to distribute the carrots.

Click to expand...

Ok, Gas. Now you're starting to sound like Al Gore.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Ok, Gas. Now you're starting to sound like Al Gore.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

... I don't think I've said anything here about democracy or campaign finance...

True, but you did say that the role of Government should be to govern, instead of spending its time courting the wealthy looking for support in exchange for favors.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

True, but you did say that the role of Government should be to govern, instead of spending its time courting the wealthy looking for support in exchange for favors.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Well, while I agree with that, I don't think that's what I actually said.

GasBandit said:

That's the American dream - not the material house, car, dog and TV, but the concept that through dedication, intelligence, and taking advantage of the opportunities present you can get ahead by your own effort, without it being co-opted by a lord or other tyrant who would keep you a serf.

Click to expand...

That's how I took this statement. That if government spends its time favoring the favored, then only the favored will ever be allowed to succeed. If those in power influence legislators to legislate against the up-and-comers (directly or indirectly) and the up-and-comers have no means to fight it, then success will only ever be had by those with sufficient influence.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

That's how I took this statement. That if government spends its time favoring the favored, then only the favored will ever be allowed to succeed. If those in power influence legislators to legislate against the up-and-comers (directly or indirectly) and the up-and-comers have no means to fight it, then success will only ever be had by those with sufficient influence.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose that's a valid corollary, but I was mainly using it as an argument against central planning, the welfare state, and government spending. IE, it's the government's job to keep out of your way as much as it can while still maintaining law, order and national security.

GasBandit said:

it's the government's job to keep out of your way as much as it can while still maintaining law, order and national security.

Click to expand...

So..."beside," and not "above," then?

--Patrick

A cute illustration of my side - every child tries this before they're "taught" not to.

!

Yeah. I've seen the oreo test, too. A charming bit of science, that.

--Patrick