faetal on 14/8/2012 at 18:02
Ok, I've not read though all of the comments here, so please someone tell if I am missing something, but from the flavour of the recent additions, it would appear that no one has twigged that morality and altruism in humans is an ethologically inherent trait. Not only does it arise in humans, but pretty much all social animals, due to the prevalence of doves vs hawks (not literally, refers to game theory) being more evolutionarily stable. SO the idea that without law and order or cultural morality instilled by religion or whatever, the majority of people would be raping, murdering, stealing, coercing etc.. is an out of date one. The science is far from conclusive, but it massively tends towards a general altruism being an emergent property of social function, simply because altruistic social species have out-competed the rest.
There are obviously elements of cultural modification, as can be seen in things like changing attitudes with respect to things like ethnicity and sexuality, but abhorrence and distaste as a natural response to negative behaviour is not only well established, but gains ground as more research is undertaken.
From a simple logical perspective, the nurture stance makes less sense as a complete explanation. Wouldn't it just be astronomically convenient if we started as blank slates, but somehow had the emotional flexibility to experience a vast array of complex and specific responses when faced with various scenarios? And that this could be taught?
There are plenty of laws which will be perceived as logical - for example copyright laws are unlikely to be universally tied to an emotional response in people (other than those affected by copyright issues), yet it makes sense to have them. But laws against e.g. violent assault resonate inside everyone who feels even slightly vulnerable - which includes the very strong who are vulnerable to large numbers of attackers. Likewise, theft resonates, rape resonates (though there have been cultural foils which worked against this in places like e.g. Pakistan), kidnapping, property damage - you get the idea. Ethological altruism basically stacks the odds against species which contain a high number of dicks.
I'm pretty sure DDL knows this since we went over this in the mammoth "are religious people less intelligent overall" thread a while back.
LarryG on 14/8/2012 at 18:06
Quote Posted by DDL
I was merely stating that there's a very clear line between laws you
cannot break and laws you
shouldn't break, and all human laws and conventions fall into the latter.
If I understand you correctly, you are talking about absolute natural limits vs. human laws.
The thing is that what is believed to be included in the set of absolute natural limits changes as human abilities and knowledge change. Whether it is breaking the sound barrier or human powered flight or the 4 minute mile, things that were thought to be natural limits have been shown not to be so.
Inline Image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ac/EC87-0014-8.jpg/772px-EC87-0014-8.jpgAll of those were thought, at one time, to be natural limits with lots of good scientific reasoning as to why it had to be that way. And it was wrong. New materials, better physical training, improved tools and techniques, all gave the lie to those limits. Better to not assume any absolute limits, only local and temporary ones; ones that we don't know how to defeat yet, but no promises that we won't some day, should we live so long.
So much for natural limits.
What about human crafted laws? Why do we need them? Are any of them absolute, always present in human society, totally cross cultural? I would argue that none of them are universal or absolute. If they were things that humans never did, we wouldn't create laws to prevent that from happening; we would be color blind to that possibility. So some folk must perform those actions and some societies must see a harm in allowing them for a human law to exist.
But what about universality? Consider some common taboos: cannibalism, homosexuality, theft, and nudity.
Most reading this will agree that cannibalism is bad. But there have been and still are human societies which promote the practice. Two reasons are often proposed to explain this: 1. extreme protein shortage necessitating the practice for human survival and 2. religious practice where the person doing the eating gains power form those eaten. I won't go into the differences between in-group and out-group cannibalism, but only remark that from these cultural and biological contexts, the practice is not seen to be a crime, in fact it is an important practice to be encouraged by cultural reinforcing rituals.
Homosexuality of late has become a particular touch-point for angry debate. We are at the tipping point, or perhaps just past the tipping point, of cultural acceptance in the modern Western world. Historically, some societies have condemned it (judeo-christian ones, for example) while others (classical greek and roman of course, but less well known are some native american societies who provided for a third, fully accepted, gender role). Clearly condemnation is not a human universal.
Theft. Often this is seen to be a universally condemned. But generally only within a group. Theft from those outside of the group may be seen as clever, wicked cool, brave or daring. Societies have been known to grant knighthoods to those who were especially good at this (Sir Francis Drake ring any bells?). We all play a game which explicitly rewards us for being good thieves within the game context. We don't do this to gain a sense of guilt, but instead to feel good about our cleverness and skill. So human condemnation of theft is somehow ameliorated by circumstance.
Inline Image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/DrakeKnightedTavistockMonument.jpg/800px-DrakeKnightedTavistockMonument.jpgNeed I talk about how different societies regard nudity? I thought not.
All of my examples have been thought to be immoral acts by some cultures and wholly moral acts by others. Morality is not absolute. It is a cultural construct. There are no universal human laws, all are cultural artifacts created to standardize and support that culture. And there are no guaranteed absolute natural limits that may not be overthrown in the future, as so many which were previously so thought have gone by the wayside. Does this mean that limits and laws serve no purpose? Not at all. They serve purposes within their cultural and scientific contexts. They bind the groups together, they provide order, so necessary for human comfort and a boundary for rebels to rebel against. But they are neither universal nor absolute. Without them we could not have stable societies, but without challenging them we cannot progress.
DDL on 14/8/2012 at 20:06
Faetal, yes: my point there would be that while it makes a ton of sense for people to adopt a dove strategy, so "moral behaviour" may evolve readily in social animals, there are still hawks. And indeed, should they choose to, doves may become hawks (and vice versa).
And obviously if everyone chooses to become hawks then society collapses, but as nature's millions of failed efforts show us, species collapse is entirely permitted. It's just that the species/societies where it DOESN'T collapse are the ones you see (coz they're more stable). We could be looking around ourselves thinking "yeah, we've got this morality thing nailed", when really we're just looking at a snapshot of a society on the fast-track to extinction. Hypothetically. We're progressively selecting (hopefully) for a tolerable dove/hawk ratio, but ultimately it comes down to individuals making arbitrary decisions one way or t'other, based on a host of factors. It's not..set in stone, so to speak.
And hey, if society does collapse, we can just blame the hoodies. :P
Pyrian on 14/8/2012 at 22:43
Quote Posted by Yakoob
There is a difference between "you can change your innate behavior patterns" and "people are successful because they are successful."
It really depends on your semantics. To me, "you can change your innate behavior patterns" is an inherently nonsense statement; if you, of your own accord, change your behavior patterns, that change
was innate. It's circular causality. That's either innate, or it isn't, or (IMO most likely) it's some combination of innate tendency and experience. (Really, I think there's almost no behavior that isn't strictly some combination of innate tendency and experience - nature
plus nurture.)
Of course, in context it simply meant that a person can, with some effort, choose to change their habits. Which is totally true (albeit rarer than we like to think). What that has to do with nature versus nurture is not entirely clear to me, since both the habits and the decision (and its persistence) will inevitably be deeply influenced by both.
Quote Posted by Yakoob
I don't even know how you arrived at that from CCCToad's post :weird:
What
I got from CCCToad's post was a concealed assertion of the "free will" theory of human behavior. As opposed to my viewpoint, where behavior is mostly a mix of nature and nurture with a tiny amount of chaotic whim at the edges, there is a viewpoint that asserts that "free will" is the primary driver of human behavior. Subjectively, this feels very natural, as we are in control of our own actions, and have difficulty predicting other people's actions. Objectively, I find "free will" essentially impossible to define and entirely unnecessary for describing behavior.
In practice, people only change their habits when they simply cannot tolerate the alternative, and all-too-often not even then.
CCCToad on 14/8/2012 at 23:34
Quote Posted by Sg3
Ugh, no--this statement isn't even answering the question it pretends to answer. So sick of hearing this; "X chose Y" is a cop-out for explaining something, not the actual explanation for it. It's the equivalent of "it just is!"
Daddy, why is grass green? "Because it's green, son. It just is." That's what you're doing here with your "successful people are successful because they choose to be successful" bullshit. It's not only grossly simplistic, but it's also actually dodging the question entirely. : /
Kind of missing the point.
Re-read the post. While adopting a confident, positive, energetic outlook doesn't guarantee success, it pretty much is a requirement. And either way, people like that are going to be more successfull (if not entirely successful) than people who choose to just wallow in their own misery.
Quote:
What
I got from CCCToad's post was a concealed assertion of the "free will" theory of human behavior. As opposed to my viewpoint, where behavior is mostly a mix of nature and nurture with a tiny amount of chaotic whim at the edges, there is a viewpoint that asserts that "free will" is the primary driver of human behavior.
Fairly close actually, but I'm adding onto it the caveat that most people don't even realize that they have the power to change their own behavior. There's far too many people out there who simply assert that "I'm grumpy" or "I have a bad temper" without realizing that those are only their mental states because they allow themselves to feel or act that way. So in practice ignorance of the human mind's true potential cripples the power of free will.
Sg3 on 15/8/2012 at 03:05
Quote Posted by CCCToad
people who choose to just wallow in their own misery.
Here we go again. Super-simplistic, anti-scientific, black & white, religious hand-me-down bunk. You are blindly accepting a notion without questioning it--that's what you're doing whenever you say "X chose Y," instead of analyzing the cause & effect structure.
(For the record, DDL and Pyrian both made my point better than I did, so I have even less reason to try to explain myself than usual.)
Yakoob on 15/8/2012 at 03:21
Man, this thread spiraled into all sorts of interesting topics. I guess there's at least one thing we can thank Fox news for :P
Quote Posted by DDL
'Course good ol' bob is only worth keeping alive as long as he's useful, if we're following harsh logic. Killing him isn't 'wrong', it's just 'not useful at the moment'.
Well given we both argue against innate moral laws, what else is left than our harsh logic ;)
Quote Posted by faetal
Ok, I've not read though all of the comments here, so please someone tell if I am missing something, but from the flavour of the recent additions, it would appear that no one has twigged that morality and altruism in humans is an ethologically inherent trait.
Well in my above example I did point out how cooperation/altruism is logical and beneficial, and hence why it becomes moral/prevalent trait. I did hint at the selfish gene / evolution in some of my posts as a reason why we have the moral code, as opposed to some innate laws embedded in the universe.
Quote:
Wouldn't it just be astronomically convenient if we started as blank slates, but somehow had the emotional flexibility to experience a vast array of complex and specific responses when faced with various scenarios?
Code:
void* human = NULL;
int main()
{
unsigned int responseCount = 10;
human = new CEmotionalResponse[responseCount];
for( unsigned int i = 0; i < responseCount; ++i )
{
...
[/nerd]
:P
Quote Posted by LarryG
What about human crafted laws? Why do we need them?
Quote Posted by LarryG
hey bind the groups together, they provide order, so necessary for human comfort and a boundary for rebels to rebel against.
I think you pretty much answered your own question. Some sort of organized societies, whether a simple wolfpack or the Roman Empire, are beneficial to survival of a specie and these laws create a framework and glue for implementing them and bonding the members. I also think that they provide some sort of a "mental comfort" knowing that the laws are neatly outlined, giving structure to our lives. People love structure.
Quote Posted by DDL
We could be looking around ourselves thinking "yeah, we've got this morality thing nailed", when really we're just looking at a snapshot of a society on the fast-track to extinction.
This is making me think of Isac Asimov's Foundation, an excellent, excellent book that kind of delves into those topics, I highly recommend it. Reading the sequel now :)
Quote:
It really depends on your semantics. To me, "you can change your innate behavior patterns" is an inherently nonsense statement; if you, of your own accord, change your behavior patterns, that change was innate.
Hmm I guess my wording was poor and I meant more of habit as you say yourself. But even innate traits, I think are changable - humans, inherently, are driven to eat meat, yet there are those who choose to be vegetarians. But like I said before, I believe
no trait is purely nature or purely nurture, they are always a mix of the two. In which case, you can really change anything about yourself (well, except physical limitations i.e. cerebral palsy).
Quote Posted by CCCToad
There's far too many people out there who simply assert that "I'm grumpy" or "I have a bad temper" without realizing that those are only their mental states because they allow themselves to feel or act that way.
Oh god yes I know so many of those people. They will bitch and whine about the SAME SHIT over and over (i.e. their poor luck with opposite sex), yet never even
try to change anything to improve their situation, even when multiple advice is given. I have grown to have low tolerance for those - if you are miserable and choose to persist in the state of miserableness even when clear solutions are given to you, gtfo, I'm done listening to your BS...
LarryG on 15/8/2012 at 03:59
Quote Posted by Yakoob
I think you pretty much answered your own question. Some sort of organized societies, whether a simple wolfpack or the Roman Empire, are beneficial to survival of a specie and these laws create a framework and glue for implementing them and bonding the members. I also think that they provide some sort of a "mental comfort" knowing that the laws are neatly outlined, giving structure to our lives. People love structure.
I certainly tried to, hence the concluding statement:
Quote:
Without them we could not have stable societies, but without challenging them we cannot progress.
demagogue on 15/8/2012 at 06:41
Two things I'll respond to now.
(1) Somewhere in one of my text-walls I think I mentioned about studies on human infants for "pre-socialized" behavior & other primates to give clues about what the mechanisms of the brain contribute vs. environment -- since many primate skills are surprisingly human-like, and you can control by giving them very human-like environments, so you can see why they break down from living-up to human social life. But absolutely, most primates, and a lot of mammals are social animals so have a lot of social cognition built-in that is very enlightening. I personally love to read those kinds of articles. (For the record, one of my backbone books on the general theory would be Glimcher's Neuroeconomics, which uses a lot of cross-species examples.)
As I read some reviews, other primates' minds, chimpanzee in particular, are geared towards almost pure instrumentalism -- parents do not teach their children anything or socialize them. The kids simply watch from a distance and pick up practices that work. And they don't have "cultural" practices, most practices are purely instrumental (a stick is a better way of getting food than fingers). They did have a lot of social coheasion abilities... Mutual grooming rituals for pair-bonding (also rather instrumental; apparently human societies were getting too large for that to be effective); and certain regular scream types signaled certain events to the group, which was more a regard for the group in the abstract than regard for other individuals specifically apparently.
Also, very interesting experiment, if you teach human children some convoluted Rube Goldberg route to getting a candy, they'll usually follow the commands, as if the candy were the reward for "following the rules". Whereas if you teach it to the chimp of the same cognitive age, the chimp will soon figure out they can just grab the candy without all the steps, and they just grab that as its own reward. Another interesting experiment... They had a board tied with 2 ropes on opposite ends, so 2 caged chimps had to pull to get a banana. If the banana is on one side, the chimp closest pulls & gets it. But if it's in the center, they both have to pull. Then what happens is, the strongest chimp simply takes the banana. Then the next time a banana is put in the center, the weaker chimp refuses to participate, the stronger cannot pull on his own, and no monkey gets a banana. And it happened every time, for all these different chimps. They simply don't get the concept of "working together to share the results", even though they can solve some very complex physical puzzles like humans. We need to interpret these experiments, but I thought it was very telling that there is something very special about "social logic" built-in to how humans solve social problems, and that giving regard to other humans (possibly "of our kind") is close to our attention, that chimps don't seem to have at all (but we have a similar "solve physical puzzles" system.) Anyway, so yeah, cross species examples are very useful IMO.
Next response in a post to come...
LarryG on 15/8/2012 at 07:41
Quote Posted by demagogue
As I read some reviews, other primates' minds, chimpanzee in particular, are geared towards almost pure instrumentalism -- parents do not teach their children anything or socialize them. The kids simply watch from a distance and pick up practices that work. And they don't have "cultural" practices, most practices are purely instrumental (a stick is a better way of getting food than fingers). They did have a lot of social coheasion abilities... Mutual grooming rituals for pair-bonding (also rather instrumental; apparently human societies were getting too large for that to be effective); and certain regular scream types signaled certain events to the group, which was more a regard for the group in the abstract than regard for other individuals specifically apparently.
Not certain that is true at all. A few online articles ...
1st chimpanzees who know ASL teach it to their young. ref. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loulis_%28chimpanzee%29) Loulis (chimpanzee)
2nd (
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9930599) Primate Gestures May Be Clue to Human Language
3rd (
http://io9.com/5926132/chimpanzee-hand-gestures-suggest-human-communication-is-even-older-than-we-thought) Chimpanzee hand gestures suggest human communication is even older than we thought
This suggests to me that chimpanzees do socialize their young and that they do have cultural practices. I suppose it depends on where in the grey you want to draw the line between black and white. But I find this more suggestive than not.
