Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/26/2011 6:15:55 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

vincent ML
Here is a link to an article which discusses cooperation and altruism as evolutionary traits. The article discusses a controversy among Evolution scientists as to the pressures that lead to the evolution of cooperation but it recognizes clearly that they agree that cooperation (i.e. social formation) is a part of human evolution. Humans cooperate for many reasons but a casual glance at human history will show that war and predation, fear and defense have been paramount reasons for banding together.


Thank you for recommending that article. I was familiar with Wilson's theory of sociobiology. Wilson's work has no status in the field I work in (gender) and is only used as an example of what not to do. So I'm afraid I didn't find it particularly persuasive.

Please allow me to return the favour. Fausto-Sterling's "Myths of Gender" dicusses many of the ideas that permeate your posts here including accounts of violence and aggression. Imperato-McGinley, a professor of biology systematically examines (from within the discipline of biology) and finds wanting the shoddy scholarship that has enabled such cultural assumptions to gain intellectual currency.

Donna Haraway's "Primate Visions", is an erudite analysis of how the discipline of primatology developed. She demonstrates how ideological values and influences mould the findings of scientists working in this field, a field that holds obvious implications for those who wish to promote versions of socio-biological perspectives and has direct relevance to your interest in evolutionary theory.

Sorry that they're both books, but if you're up for the challenge, I hope you'll find them fascinating and revealing.

quote:

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim our studies of human behavior are flawed by subjectivity and then go on to so adamently use research to bolster your position about human behavor.


The elimination of any objectivity in the field of human behaviour does not "wash away' all previous work. Removing the grandiose claims allows a more realistic appraisal, and opens the data examined to re-consideration and re-interpretation from other (equally subjective) perspectives. The baby is not thrown out with the bathwater.

The realisation that all work in the area of human behaviour is necessarily subjective doesn't mean that conclusions are impossible. Only objective conclusions are now impossible. Any conclusions (including mine) will be subjective and open to all the flaws inherent in subjectivity. The contradiction you claim is only possible if I present my evidence or conclusion as objective - I make no such claim. My conclusion is entirely subjective ergo, no contradiction.

One implication of this is that the thought is no longer independent of the thinker. In my field it is standard practice to evaluate the perspective (ideology) of the thinker with their thoughts. In any general theory of human behaviour, the first test the theory must pass is: Does it describe the theorist's own behaviour? If it fails this test, there's no point in developing it further is there? Knowledge is produced at specific times and in specific circumstances, and the process influences the outcome, as with any commodity. This is widely (but not universally) accepted in both epistemology and the philosophy of science by those who see it as an inevitable consequence of the sociology of knowledge.

In my previous post, I wrote that "all the evidence to date points to .....". I then added the repeated failure to find, and the non-existence of any evidence to support the 'biological model' strengthened that perspective.

I left unmentioned the existence of several compelling (IMHO) epistemological arguments that suggest the impossibility of identifying biological determinants of human behaviour. The existence and operation of human psyches and human consciousness (both, surprisingly, as yet unmentioned in this discussion on either thread IIRC) also present difficulties that biological models, AFAIK, have been unsuccessful in addressing.

We have both referred to the historical record. Our interpretations of that record differ sharply. This is essentially a value call. Everyone is familiar with the record to one extent or another and is free to form their own views.

If we are to choose between the two views of human nature/behaviour on the basis of the available evidence, it seems to me that there is only one viable candidate.


< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/26/2011 6:21:11 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/26/2011 6:31:17 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Aggression displayed by adults and even by younger people certainly exists. But if one is proposing it as human nature then that claims it to be an inherent quality of all humans regardless of any exogenous influence. I see too many people of all ages and backgrounds lacking that quality to be convinced that it is something attributable to all humans from birth.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/26/2011 6:40:39 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Yeah, y'all are right. There's no aggression in human nature. Where the hell did i get that idea from?

pam


No idea. Not from me, though.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/27/2011 7:02:38 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

If we are to choose between the two views of human nature/behaviour on the basis of the available evidence, it seems to me that there is only one viable candidate.


Thank you for an erudite reply. There is one real world case study in gender identification that provides objective evidence for the biological model. There may be others but this is the one I am familiar with and which i have to offer. Since it is in your field of gender studies you are probably familiar with the case of David Reimer, the Canadian child who suffered a botched circumcision. If you are familiar with it you know his parents brought the infant to Dr John Money at John Hopkins University, who convinced them to raise David as Brenda. David rebelled from the start at the attempt to socialize his gender boy to girl, insisting on doing all the things that boys do in play. The experiment was a tragic failure and lays a strong foundation imho that gender is determined by nature. Sadly, a very angry and confused David committed suicide in his thirties.

quote:

One implication of this is that the thought is no longer independent of the thinker. In my field it is standard practice to evaluate the perspective (ideology) of the thinker with their thoughts. In any general theory of human behaviour, the first test the theory must pass is: Does it describe the theorist's own behaviour? If it fails this test, there's no point in developing it further is there? Knowledge is produced at specific times and in specific circumstances, and the process influences the outcome, as with any commodity. This is widely (but not universally) accepted in both epistemology and the philosophy of science by those who see it as an inevitable consequence of the sociology of knowledge.


Thank you. This is well understood and is why peer review and literature publication is so important. However, theories of human evolution are not contigent upon just a few thinkers. Many people have contributed to the field and support the biological model. In this respect let me point to the work of Noam Chomsky on syntax acquisition. I realize his is a much criticized proposition but the criticism rests on the character of the innateness not the proposition that the mind is NOT a blank slate at birth.

quote:

We have both referred to the historical record. Our interpretations of that record differ sharply. This is essentially a value call. Everyone is familiar with the record to one extent or another and is free to form their own views.


Thousands and thousands of years of bloodshed cannot be so easily shrugged off as a "value call." Really? The record is horrific and points to the irrefutable conclusion that the behavior of humankind has been a recurring story of tribal predation first upon other species and then intraspecies.

Obviously we do not agree on this issue but i thank you for an intelligent and courteous debate.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/27/2011 7:11:01 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:


Aggression displayed by adults and even by younger people certainly exists. But if one is proposing it as human nature then that claims it to be an inherent quality of all humans regardless of any exogenous influence. I see too many people of all ages and backgrounds lacking that quality to be convinced that it is something attributable to all humans from birth.



I don't see where that claim was made in this thread. Maybe I missed it. It is obvious that socializtion has an impact on Nature. Furthermore, the second leg in the Hobbesian stool is that people form a commonwealth - they socialize - for need of safety, i.e. for fear of predation.

And then there are the many falures of social influence well demonstrated by serial killers and rapists. Every serial killer and rapist was not, contrary to popular myth molested as a child. Jeffrey Dahmer is a case in point.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 4/27/2011 7:12:38 AM >

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/27/2011 7:36:46 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Are you afraid to make an affirmative statement which can be subject to scrutiny? It seems that way.

I did make a statement that can be subjected to scrutiny: I said that your view of human nature is distorted and misanthropic. Several other posters have commented on this as well, pointing out the various glaring weaknesses of your view.

Why don't you stop baiting people and just take one for the team.

K.


Again you simply criticize my view without laying out your own opinion on the OP. So much easier and safer to operate as a critic on these boards without subjecting your own views on the topic to scrutiny. And now you are reduced to labeling my views to "baiting." That is the best you have? No answer of your own to the OP. How unoriginal and boring. Tweakabelle and Edwynn at least have the stones to set forth their own views. Admirable of them and lends credability to their criticism of my views. They have the courage to step forth. Cannot say the same for your comments, I'm afraid. Easier to go on the attack and not subject your own ideas to criticism. What do you give us in place of your own views but a link to a 59 minute video with the assurances we can trust you it will be well worth our while to watch. Is that lazy or what? Not even a brief introduction to the point of the film. Criticsm, criticism, naught but criticism. Borrrrrrring. Not the first time i have seen that tactic.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/27/2011 10:01:03 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

And then there are the many falures of social influence well demonstrated by serial killers and rapists. Every serial killer and rapist was not, contrary to popular myth molested as a child. Jeffrey Dahmer is a case in point.





OK, in case something might have been either overlooked, or inadvertently assumed upon others, or misconstrued or whatever ...

Let's go the other way with it here.

The vast majority of beaten, abused, and molested children do not turn out to be serial killers. And even some good number of them do not turn out to be aggressive as adults, at least not too much. I greatly admire those that have been through some severe struggles there, and everyday that they come more into their true self and further away from their 'accustomed' self is something I appreciate, as do all around them. If aggression be a putative 'human trait,' I can't understand why they bother.


Serial killers and rapists are not failures of social influence. They are 'failures,' if that word be insisted upon, of biological anomaly, 'brain chemistry' as we say in this time, and even then of only some rare and particular type as yet not properly identified.







< Message edited by Edwynn -- 4/27/2011 10:06:56 AM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/27/2011 3:37:17 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
My goodness, you certainly do become disagreeable when someone doesn't do what you want. I'm afraid you're going to find that a rather frustrating personality trait in your dealings with me.

I offered the video about Caral in response to the views quoted in that post, without criticizing them, but as a counterpoint. More directly with respect to your own bizarre claims, I've pointed out that you cannot separate man's human nature from his social nature (as you rather nastily insisted upon to Edwynn), and that you can't separate nature from nurture as you proposed to me (it's the environment that turns genes on and off). But, of course, nothing sticks, despite the additional flaws pointed out by others with a degree of patience far beyond what your misanthropic nonsense deserves.

Now here's the way things work. If someone claims that the Vikings were a ladies knitting society, he stands to be informed that he's nuts. And if he tries to bait an argument by insisting upon being told, then, what the Vikings "really" were, so the issue can be discussed, I, for one, am unlikely to bother. Get used to it.

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 4/27/2011 4:13:11 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/27/2011 11:09:06 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

The [Reimer] experiment was a tragic failure and lays a strong foundation imho that gender is determined by nature.


The Reimer case was indeed a tragedy from start to finish. The only firm conclusion I can draw from it is that Money's theories didn't work in this instance. Anything further is speculative. The (alleged) inability of one model to describe a phenomenon does not, of itself, validate a competing model in any way.

This case does highlight, IMHO, the gross inadequacy of clinical and reductionist approaches to human behaviour/nature. Money's work has been discredited and he is ignored in my field. However, in conventional accounts of behaviour (eg the medical literature) his work is still influential. Best not to trust anything solely because it has passed peer review

There are other models than rigid determinism (be it either Nature or Nurture or interactive/both) available. Some provide far more eloquent accounts of gender and behaviour than any deterministic model IMHO. The more interesting work in my field abandoned determinism decades ago.


quote:

However, theories of human evolution are not contigent upon just a few thinkers. Many people have contributed to the field and support the biological model.


I would actually question the validity of arguing a position on human nature/behaviour from evolutionary theory. The time scales involved - a human life is a mere blink of an eye in evolutionary time scales - suggest a parallel in physics, where Newton's mechanical model of the universe fails completely when applied to the quantum world.

There is no observed behaviour in the world of evolutionary thinking. Only theoretical verification seems possible in relation to human behaviour. These are serious drawbacks. Evolution is a superb description of human physiological development over the eons, but as a basis for understanding the relative minutiae of everyday human behaviour it is questionable. And some notable evolutionary theorists (eg Dawkins) make claims far beyond anything science can support.

On the historical record, please consider this. There are 6 billion + people around today. At a very generous guestimate, perhaps a ten million on any given day are engaged in war. Add another ten million who might engage in violence on a given day. Even if we triple those figures and say 60 million are engaged in violent behaviour, it still amounts to a mere c1% of humans engaged in violence on a given day. Sorry but grounding a theory of human nature in the behaviours of less than 1% of humans seems rather dubious to me.

quote:

Obviously we do not agree on this issue but i thank you for an intelligent and courteous debate.


I enjoyed it too. I appreciate the grace with which you advanced your views. Thank you so much, the exchange would have been impossible without your valuable contributions.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/27/2011 11:23:00 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/28/2011 7:40:13 AM   
ChatteParfaitt


Posts: 6562
Joined: 3/22/2011
From: The t'aint of the Midwest -- Indiana
Status: offline 		I've enjoyed the comments on this thread immensely, though admit there is much I don't agree with.

My own perception of human nature springs from my interest in evolutionary anthropology. Biologically, man is a large, predatory mammal with teeth meant for eating meat, a highly developed brain, and an upright body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects.

Predatory mammals hunt and kill for survival, either for food to eat or to dominate scarce resources. What some consider violence and aggression is an innate part of our inherent drive to survive. Everything, plant and animal, just wants to survive.

Do we look upon the lion as violent and aggressive? I suppose some do, though I see the lion as a highly efficient hunter, made even more so by its ability to hunt cooperatively.

Humans, due to their highly developed brains, have two enormous advantages in terms of survival. We have the ability to create advanced tools with which to (uniquely) manipulate our environment, along with extremely advanced language skills, which allow us to be distinctively cooperative and social.

What does all this have to do with human nature? Humans are products of their own DNA. That personality and the human genome are linked is no longer in question, though there is much research still to be done.

(An abstract some may find of interest: Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for personalityhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21173776 )

Most anthropologists will agree that driving the human need to survive are two (often conflicting) traits: predatory and cooperative. I have no doubt in time scientists will be able to differentiate those novel genes (or gene clusters) that determine various personality traits.

As beings we are, to a certain extent at least, programmed in terms of personality, with some being more predatory, some more cooperative. The exact roll nurture has on these two basic traits is not something that is agreed upon. We know humans can be taught to be more cooperative, they can also be taught to be more violent. The link between domestic violence and the children growing up to be violent themselves is well documented.

( See: Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Youth Violence: Strategies for Prevention and Early Intervention http://www.mincava.umn.edu/link/documents/fvpf2/fvpf2.shtml )

I would say, from an anthropological point of view, humans are becoming more cooperative and less violent.

Also, humans, like most mammals, have a inherent resistance to killing their own kind. For brevity's sake I will paraphrase, but here is a link to the entire article:
http://www.killology.com/print/print_psychological.htm

"One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that this resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat.  . . . Marshall concluded in his landmark book, Men Against Fire, that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier.  . . .when left to their own devices, the great majority of individual combatants throughout history appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill."

My conclusions? The majority of humans are cooperative social animals with an inherent revulsion to both killing their own kind and violence towards other humans or animals (unless they have been programmed to violence through early child domestic abuse or other means).


< Message edited by ChatteParfaitt -- 4/28/2011 7:42:18 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/28/2011 1:28:24 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

I offered the video about Caral in response to the views quoted in that post, without criticizing them, but as a counterpoint. More directly with respect to your own bizarre claims, I've pointed out that you cannot separate man's human nature from his social nature (as you rather nastily insisted upon to Edwynn), and that you can't separate nature from nurture as you proposed to me (it's the environment that turns genes on and off). But, of course, nothing sticks, despite the additional flaws pointed out by others with a degree of patience far beyond what your misanthropic nonsense deserves.


You offered the video in reply to three posters without informing us what the video had to offer. Your only comment was to trust you that it was worth spending our time to view it. And taking your word without explantion or preview of the "counterpoint" we should all hurry to do your bidding? Really! Was there ever a more lame and ineffectual way to offer a rebutal? If so, I have never seen it. Is that the best you can do? I thought we were past such lazy methods of discussion and debate. Apparently not.

Here also you continue the fiction that I said you can seperate Nature from Nurture when in fact I said lets seperate them for the moment. I went on to say in #62 that I agreed with you.'

Absolutely agree. Which means the genetic potential for aggression has not been lost but has been socialized and often amplified by the characteristics of our tribe. I never said human nature is not modified by environment. The OP did not ask for modification. Getting down to the nitty gritty our ancestors survived because they were cooperative predators. The phenotype for predatory aggression is still quite visible in human affairs however it is modified. The newborn babe is not a blank slate. It comes with a set of instructions. That set of instructions is its genetic heritage, its Nature, in my lexicon. I don't see where we have much disagreement except I propose the elements of Nature can be distinguished from the influence of Nurture.

Now, what is it about that paragraph that causes you such difficulty of comprehension? Was I mistaken in believing you were a learned individual? Are the sentences too long for you?

quote:

Now here's the way things work. If someone claims that the Vikings were a ladies knitting society, he stands to be informed that he's nuts. And if he tries to bait an argument by insisting upon being told, then, what the Vikings "really" were, so the issue can be discussed, I, for one, am unlikely to bother. Get used to it.


No, allow me to clarify to you the way it works. We all learn to read and comprehend the meanings of long sentences before we tell people they are "nuts" or label their ideas as "misanthropic nonsense." Tsk, tsk, name calling is so low class. We all learn to present our points of view with clarity and in our own words without relying upon third party links to speak for us, which is such lazy way to proceed. We all allow others to present their thesis and supporting arguments and counterpoints without accusing them of baiting others. Such a very lazy, patronizing and pompous tactic. No credibility. Nope. None whatsoever. No siree. And that is something I can very easily "get used to."

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/28/2011 1:54:08 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I would say, from an anthropological point of view, humans are becoming more cooperative and less violent.

Also, humans, like most mammals, have a inherent resistance to killing their own kind. For brevity's sake I will paraphrase, but here is a link to the entire article:


Thank you for your comments. I wonder what metric one would use in concluding that humans are becoming more cooperative and less violent. Doesn't it depend upon the absence or presence of challenges to their survival? I guess what I am saying it is easy to draw that conclusion when times are good and there is plenty of sustinance for all. But humankind has not always and not everywhere lived in good times.

I skimmed the article you linked about the reluctance to kill during combat. First, I noticed that the agrandizement of war is not minimized in the article. Nations and their leaders do get up for the kill. The soldiers in combat, the young kids, have been socialized against killing, haven't they, before they were thrown into close combat? Not sure what that says about our inherent predation. Additionally, we have surprising cases where our own troops have engaged in atrocities. So, one wonders what happens to that socialization under stress.

Would surely appreciate your coments.

(in reply to ChatteParfaitt)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/28/2011 2:17:37 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline


Whatever the species under study, are we to take their response to the most unendurable stress as being indicative of their 'true nature' here? Maybe not even great stress, but actually anything significantly outside of what  would be their normal and genetically predisposed existence?









< Message edited by Edwynn -- 4/28/2011 2:50:08 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/28/2011 2:36:31 PM   
ChatteParfaitt


Posts: 6562
Joined: 3/22/2011
From: The t'aint of the Midwest -- Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML



Thank you for your comments. I wonder what metric one would use in concluding that humans are becoming more cooperative and less violent. Doesn't it depend upon the absence or presence of challenges to their survival? I guess what I am saying it is easy to draw that conclusion when times are good and there is plenty of sustinance for all. But humankind has not always and not everywhere lived in good times.


Absolutely. Case in point, any large inner city ghetto where children are schooled in violence from an early age. Yes, the inhabitants are extremely violent, they need to be to survive. So what do they do? They join gangs, which are social and cooperative groups that many consider to be their family and that some sociologists consider close to a tribe.

Let's take that a step further, shall we? As man has mastered his environment, he no longer has to struggle so hard to survive, and becomes more social and cooperative. Those ghetto toughies? What are they fighting for? Food? Shelter? Warm clothing? For the most part none of that. They fight for drugs, territory, and the latest brand of overly expensive athletic shoe. Their sense of survival is skewed, being disrespected has replaced being considered low down on the food chain. Although these groups no longer have an intense need to compete for survival assets, their environment is as competitively violent as the poor sections of inner city London 200 years ago.

So perhaps I should amend my statement to say: Given a stable social environment w/o the intense need to fight for survival resources, human beings lean more toward cooperation and less toward violence.

A ghetto is not a stable social environment. A battle field is not a stable social environment.

I skimmed the article you linked about the reluctance to kill during combat. First, I noticed that the agrandizement of war is not minimized in the article. Nations and their leaders do get up for the kill. The soldiers in combat, the young kids, have been socialized against killing, haven't they, before they were thrown into close combat? Not sure what that says about our inherent predation. Additionally, we have surprising cases where our own troops have engaged in atrocities. So, one wonders what happens to that socialization under stress.

A high degree of stress coupled with a socially unstable environment often produces unpredictable outbursts of incredible violence. A wartime situation only enhances this, because, although you can psychologically alter man's revulsion for killing his own kind, you do so at the risk of creating beings who are forever incapable of  being "normally" socialized.

As far as the causes of war, in my opinion, these days war is most often fueled by ideology, not predation over scarce resources.

Would surely appreciate your coments.


_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/28/2011 11:38:24 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

we should all hurry to do your bidding? Really!

Please stop these childish misrepresentations. I never said anyone should hurry to do my bidding. I simply indicated that it would reward watching in the context of the quoted opinions about human nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Here also you continue the fiction that I said you can seperate Nature from Nurture when in fact I said lets seperate them for the moment.

So you admit that you said it, in claiming that you didn't? That's really quite droll. But I understand, you just wanted to separate them "for the moment" to further your argument. So you really didn't, because it was only "for the moment." Check.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Was I mistaken in believing you were a learned individual?

No, that was my mistake. Had you just honestly said that this is the way you feel, well, while I still would not share your views, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But portraying this nonsense as an intelligent conclusion supported by evidence is a hard act to book. Five pages in so far, have you found anyone yet who accepts your arguments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

We all learn to present our points of view with clarity and in our own words without relying upon third party links to speak for us

Again, please stop these childish misrepresentations. I offered the Caral video for consideration relative to the claims being made, not to express my point of view. I presented my point of view elsewhere, as clearly as English and the TOS allow, and you should be advised that nobody is required to offer a different construction of human nature -- or even to have formulated one at all -- in order to observe that yours is a house of cards in a clown suit.

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 4/29/2011 12:36:16 AM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/29/2011 4:53:22 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Again, please stop these childish misrepresentations. I offered the Caral video for consideration relative to the claims being made, not to express my point of view. I presented my point of view elsewhere, as clearly as English and the TOS allow, and you should be advised that nobody is required to offer a different construction of human nature -- or even to have formulated one at all -- in order to observe that yours is a house of cards in a clown suit.


Lame, hollow, boring, yatta yatta yatta, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum . . . . yawnnnnn . . . .

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/29/2011 6:55:41 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Let's take that a step further, shall we? As man has mastered his environment, he no longer has to struggle so hard to survive, and becomes more social and cooperative.


Okay, a few points that occurred to me here. Firstly, being a little redundant here to point out the ease for survival is all relative to where you are. If you live in a co-op on the East Side in NYC then you are in fat city; if you are sleeping in a lean-to tent on a sidewalk in Calcutta not so fat city. Secondly, fierce competition and struggle go on all up and down the social ladder as witnessed by the zero sum games of financial markets and special interest politics. Thirdly, in evolutionary theory cooperation makes struggle more efficient and so is not the antithesis of it. Fourthly, what passes for cooperation and has passed for cooperation throughout history may very likely be suppression of masses of society by the privileged and powerful. We have plenty of examples of cooperation at the point of a gun and other means that autocracies continue to use. The Soviet hegemony was a case in point and so were the many Empires of history. Today we are witnessing the boiling rebellion against suppression by Islamic Royalty and Dictatorships. So, cooperation is not always voluntary. Maybe a phenomenon exclusive to the West for the most part historically. But even in the West cooperation is maintained by class and ritual. Suggesting here that there is some room for debate as to whether humankind is in fact becoming more cooperative.


But would you not consider that without the drug trade our inner cities are in fact as impoverished as Dickens’s London? Additionally, let me point back to Thomas Hobbes who I mentioned earlier in this thread. Hobbes argued that in nature (i.e. outside a social compact) man was motivated by competition (i.e. aggression for gain) safety and glory (reputation) The latter goes a long way to explain the expensive shoes I think.

quote:

So perhaps I should amend my statement to say: Given a stable social environment w/o the intense need to fight for survival resources, human beings lean more toward cooperation and less toward violence.

A ghetto is not a stable social environment. A battle field is not a stable social environment.


You are more optimistic about the political and economic stability of the world’s population than I am. Not from any academic studies but from reading the daily news I have the impression there is a perpetual state of struggle due to a huge disparity over wealth, safety, and reputation. I can’t prove it of course but I am not so sanguine about the state of voluntary cooperation among the peoples of this planet. One only has to look at our own political cleavage to suspect something’s happening here.

Thank you for your insights, CP. Very valuable to this thread and helpful to my thinking.



(in reply to ChatteParfaitt)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/29/2011 6:55:59 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

we should all hurry to do your bidding? Really!

Please stop these childish misrepresentations. I never said anyone should hurry to do my bidding. I simply indicated that it would reward watching in the context of the quoted opinions about human nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Here also you continue the fiction that I said you can seperate Nature from Nurture when in fact I said lets seperate them for the moment.

So you admit that you said it, in claiming that you didn't? That's really quite droll. But I understand, you just wanted to separate them "for the moment" to further your argument. So you really didn't, because it was only "for the moment." Check.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Was I mistaken in believing you were a learned individual?

No, that was my mistake. Had you just honestly said that this is the way you feel, well, while I still would not share your views, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But portraying this nonsense as an intelligent conclusion supported by evidence is a hard act to book. Five pages in so far, have you found anyone yet who accepts your arguments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

We all learn to present our points of view with clarity and in our own words without relying upon third party links to speak for us

Again, please stop these childish misrepresentations. I offered the Caral video for consideration relative to the claims being made, not to express my point of view. I presented my point of view elsewhere, as clearly as English and the TOS allow, and you should be advised that nobody is required to offer a different construction of human nature -- or even to have formulated one at all -- in order to observe that yours is a house of cards in a clown suit.

K.






My! What an attitude.

While I by no means share the views you hold in such obvious contempt, I'm saddened to see you trying so painstakingly, so earnestly to belittle those who hold views that differ from yours. It says a lot about you.

The views advanced here by others are held sincerely, with great conviction by many. That includes people who know a lot more than you and I put together. Personally I believe some of those views to be erroneous, but it's not that long ago that they they were at the cutting edge of knowledge. And who is arrogant enough to claim a monopoly on truth? We're all of us free to question or dispute any view advanced on these threads. If it was otherwise I (and, I'm certain, many others) wouldn't want to participate.

A pose that dismisses opposing views as trivial fluff unworthy of the august attention of the pseudo-sagacious is unlikely to fool any one. And if anyone is idiotic enough to be persuaded by such vacuous haughtiness, they're hardly worth the effort.

Please think carefully about whether you post here to ventilate your own ego or to share your knowledge and experience to engage with, to listen to and influence others. No one can do both.



< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/29/2011 7:23:17 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/29/2011 7:02:42 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

The Reimer case was indeed a tragedy from start to finish. The only firm conclusion I can draw from it is that Money's theories didn't work in this instance. Anything further is speculative. The (alleged) inability of one model to describe a phenomenon does not, of itself, validate a competing model in any way.


But really, doesn’t David’s experience confirm the innateness of gender identity? And isn’t this heredity factor what the Gay and Transgender communities rely upon to justify the sexual and social behavior of their members? Tell me please if I have missed the point of their political posture. Isn’t genetics destiny?

quote:

There are other models than rigid determinism (be it either Nature or Nurture or interactive/both) available. Some provide far more eloquent accounts of gender and behaviour than any deterministic model IMHO. The more interesting work in my field abandoned determinism decades ago.


I am not familiar with that work even in the popular literature so you have me at a disadvantage there. I will take your word for it.

quote:

I would actually question the validity of arguing a position on human nature/behaviour from evolutionary theory. The time scales involved - a human life is a mere blink of an eye in evolutionary time scales - suggest a parallel in physics, where Newton's mechanical model of the universe fails completely when applied to the quantum world.


But I was not arguing the behavior of any single individual so I was not being reductionist in that sense. And btw Newton’s model will still suffice because in everyday affairs we do not encounter the quantum world. Whether electrons are particles and waves or solely particles with wave properties makes little difference when I am crossing at a red light in the path of an oncoming truck.

quote:

There is no observed behaviour in the world of evolutionary thinking. Only theoretical verification seems possible in relation to human behaviour. These are serious drawbacks. Evolution is a superb description of human physiological development over the eons, but as a basis for understanding the relative minutiae of everyday human behaviour it is questionable. And some notable evolutionary theorists (e.g. Dawkins) make claims far beyond anything science can support.


But this is gap is being filled with experiments in electronic brain functions during emotional and cognitive events. The field of knowledge is in great flux I think. Do not dismiss it so easily.

quote:

On the historical record, please consider this. There are 6 billion + people around today. At a very generous guestimate, perhaps a ten million on any given day are engaged in war. Add another ten million who might engage in violence on a given day. Even if we triple those figures and say 60 million are engaged in violent behaviour, it still amounts to a mere c1% of humans engaged in violence on a given day. Sorry but grounding a theory of human nature in the behaviours of less than 1% of humans seems rather dubious to me.


A little mathematical trickery here. You discount the great masses of people worldwide who live under oppressive regimes. There is a quiet violence going on which your numbers ignore.

Additionally, your numbers ignore the historical phenomenon where a few have caused great violence to multitudes. Just for starters, the Jewish Shoah, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the killing fields of Cambodia, the decimation of the indigenous people of America by the Spanish, English, and Jacksonian Americans, the massacre in Rwanda, etc, etc. So, numbers are not a measure of evil I think.

Thank you again, tweakabelle

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 4/29/2011 7:06:32 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn




Whatever the species under study, are we to take their response to the most unendurable stress as being indicative of their 'true nature' here? Maybe not even great stress, but actually anything significantly outside of what  would be their normal and genetically predisposed existence?




Apologies, Edwynn. I have lost track of this point. Please give me a reference along with your comment. Thank you.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.102