NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that we often try to out do each other as humans? Religions tell us there is only one way to after life. governments tell their people they are the best people on earth and they should work harder to stay there. Parents tell children to succeed in order to do better than the rest. Why do we seek to out achieve others? Is it not possible that by seeking to out do others, we are cutting humanity short of what its really capable of? Is it our nature to be competitive? Or are we simply brainwashed into such thinking?

Actually, most religions (except maybe Satanism) advise that you help your fellow man. The entire philosophy of Christianity is "Love your Neighbor as Yourself". Buddhism seeks to remove suffering. Unfortunately, Christians and others are brought down by the theological and more importantly the legalisc aspects of their religion. I left Christianity, but I do believe in the philosophy behind it. Religion isnt about hating "fags" or blowing yourself up. Religion is meant to help you find out what is important in your life

Actually, most religions (except maybe Satanism) advise that you help your fellow man. The entire philosophy of Christianity is "Love your Neighbor as Yourself". Buddhism seeks to remove suffering. Unfortunately, Christians and others are brought down by the theological and more importantly the legalisc aspects of their religion. I left Christianity, but I do believe in the philosophy behind it. Religion isnt about hating "fags" or blowing yourself up. Religion is meant to help you find out what is important in your life

As a Christian I also know that the religion teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven. That instill a sense of pride among followers. They think "Oh I am special, I am going to heaven and not those heathen homos and pagans"

Sex.

Survival.

Is it not possible that by seeking to out do others, we are cutting humanity short of what its really capable of?
Huh?

I suggest you read 'Atlas Shrugged' - the parts that deal with individual motivation are worthwhile, whatever you think about the rest of the book.

People seek to out do others because it is within their best interest to be ahead of the game. If you don't try to beat people than you fall behind in life. That is atleast what I think is going on, I don't actually agree with any of that though.

Survival.

You have the first letter right.

As a Christian I also know that the religion teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven. That instill a sense of pride among followers. They think "Oh I am special, I am going to heaven and not those heathen homos and pagans"

But is that really the attitude that Jesus told his followers to exhibit? I mean, Jesus was a friend to prostitutes and low-lifes. While I don't believe he was the Son of God, I do believe he was trying to reform Judaism, as well as human behavior. I dont think that the only way to God (if he exists) is through Jesus, if that were so, then what about all the people who were raised another religion all thier life? I mean, there are so many people who have been convinced that A, B, or C religion is correct, they would never convert. Does that mean if C is correct, then A and B are going to hell? If so, God must be a total prick.

Huh?

I suggest you read 'Atlas Shrugged' - the parts that deal with individual motivation are worthwhile, whatever you think about the rest of the book.

Basically its like this:

With countries, we seek to out preform others economically, and also militarily. We can see in the past 500 years how the exploitations of places for resources to out do other competing nations has left the world scarred. Not only that, but our desire to out do each other militarily has left millions dead, millions displaced, entire nations obliterated and so on. What I am saying is that because of our competitiveness, we are essentially destroying the human race. What would happen if we seek to help other out instead? We build up our people, AND their people, and we live long fruitful lives.

With countries, we seek to out preform others economically, and also militarily.
But aren't countries based on being a group and helping each other?

It's all dick insecurity. That's all it is. Men are afraid the other country's men might have bigger dicks so they shoot high speed dicks at them.

Religious tension is due to insecurities about the comparative size of 'my god's dick' vs. 'their god's dick'.

About two thousand years ago, at a time when people were really going at eachother about theirs and gods' dick sizes, along came a man named Jesus. He told us that it wasn't the size of your dick that mattered, it was how you used it. AFter he got nailed to a giant wooden dick, his message was taken by his people and turned into the proof they needed that Jesus must've had the biggest dick of them all.

*sigh*

But aren't countries based on being a group and helping each other?

Helping those with a common ancestry or ideology, but as for others, its mostly screw you.

It's all dick insecurity. That's all it is. Men are afraid the other country's men might have bigger dicks so they shoot high speed dicks at them.

Religious tension is due to insecurities about the comparative size of 'my god's dick' vs. 'their god's dick'.

About two thousand years ago, at a time when people were really going at eachother about theirs and gods' dick sizes, along came a man named Jesus. He told us that it wasn't the size of your dick that mattered, it was how you used it. AFter he got nailed to a giant wooden dick, his message was taken by his people and turned into the proof they needed that Jesus must've had the biggest dick of them all.

*sigh*

So we need to quit worrying about size of our dicks, and start worrying about having more sex with our dicks, or else we will end up playing with our dicks alone?

Religion is meant to help you find out what is important in your life


That is the intent, why then do people not adhere to it? Is it because we cannot separate politics and religion?

So we need to quit worrying about size of our dicks, and start worrying about having more sex with our dicks, or else we will end up playing with our dicks alone?

Or worse, people could end up throwing high-speed dicks at you. :eek:

Or worse, people could end up throwing high-speed dicks at you. :eek:

As long as they are tipped with uranium. I mean uranium tipped flying dicks really screw you hard.

Why do we seek to out achieve others?

I don't have any desire to out achieve anyone at anything, really...just as long as my needs are met.

Is it our nature to be competitive?

Nah...it's our nature to shift as much work onto others as possible.

Competitive people are those who don't mind doing that extra work. :p

That is the intent, why then do people not adhere to it? Is it because we cannot separate politics and religion?

Unfortunately I think it is that religion (note I am talking more religious philosophy as opposed to religious theology) asks us to do things that are hard. It is easier to punch someone in the face than work out a resolution. It isnt easy to go out of our way and help someone in need. It is easier to collect money then to donate.

Also, politicians have hijacked relgion and turned it into their bitch. If you convince people that God is on YOUR side, oh, then you must be right.

It is easier to collect money then to donate.
I would question that.

I would question that.

You question that it is easier to for you to get more stuff than it is to give it away? Wouldn't you rather get money than give it? I am not saying its physically easier, I am saying that human beings, as a whole, are more inclined to take than to give.

Why is it that we often try to out do each other as humans? Religions tell us there is only one way to after life. governments tell their people they are the best people on earth and they should work harder to stay there. Parents tell children to succeed in order to do better than the rest. Why do we seek to out achieve others? Is it not possible that by seeking to out do others, we are cutting humanity short of what its really capable of? Is it our nature to be competitive? Or are we simply brainwashed into such thinking?

Because the guy (or girl) who outdoes others makes more money, eats more food, and gets more women(or men).

Seriously, outdoing others is perhaps a sign of having better genes? Being smarter, faster, stronger, all that?

Its about competition all right. Not enough resources for everyone, and human beings are selfish anyway, we don't like to share. So you try to get more than the next guy, and to get more than him you have to be 'better'.

People seek to out-do other people because it is part of the race for survival. No matter how much we evolve, we still retain our primate functions, such as the need to be better and thus out-survive those around us we perceive as an obstacle in our way to the finish line of life. Of course, some times that race is a relay in which you pass the baton onto your team-mates.

It's all dick insecurity. That's all it is. Men are afraid the other country's men might have bigger dicks so they shoot high speed dicks at them.

Religious tension is due to insecurities about the comparative size of 'my god's dick' vs. 'their god's dick'.

About two thousand years ago, at a time when people were really going at eachother about theirs and gods' dick sizes, along came a man named Jesus. He told us that it wasn't the size of your dick that mattered, it was how you used it. AFter he got nailed to a giant wooden dick, his message was taken by his people and turned into the proof they needed that Jesus must've had the biggest dick of them all.

*sigh*Quality.

So we need to quit worrying about size of our dicks, and start worrying about having more sex with our dicks, or else we will end up playing with our dicks alone?
Also quality.
Because the guy (or girl) who outdoes others makes more money, eats more food, and gets more women(or men).

Seriously, outdoing others is perhaps a sign of having better genes? Being smarter, faster, stronger, all that?

Its about competition all right. Not enough resources for everyone, and human beings are selfish anyway, we don't like to share. So you try to get more than the next guy, and to get more than him you have to be 'better'.
This has been bugging the shit out of me recently. People use this all the time to excuse all kinds of dickish behavior and I'm finally at the point where I want to call bullshit.

We're fleshy, slow, not covered in fur and have no natural weapons. If we were also selfish undercutting and mean to our core, we'd never have made it through the evolutionary lottery. Our chief edge wasn't tool use, that'd be useless if all we did with that is dick each other over, no-it's compassion, caring about the other guy, co-operation and sticking together that brought us from scavenging to building skyscrapers. All animals have that 'get mine' element to them, what made us different (among other things) is that it was we made sure we all got some so we all survived because we needed each other.

We might have gotten too big to recognize everyone as part of the tribe, and that sense of other can override our sense of tribe, but people need to stop excusing being a dick as part of human nature. No my friend, you're just a dick. (not you specifically, the broader 'you.')

It's all dick insecurity. That's all it is. Men are afraid the other country's men might have bigger dicks so they shoot high speed dicks at them.

Religious tension is due to insecurities about the comparative size of 'my god's dick' vs. 'their god's dick'.

About two thousand years ago, at a time when people were really going at eachother about theirs and gods' dick sizes, along came a man named Jesus. He told us that it wasn't the size of your dick that mattered, it was how you used it. AFter he got nailed to a giant wooden dick, his message was taken by his people and turned into the proof they needed that Jesus must've had the biggest dick of them all.

*sigh*

Clearly, then, the only way to resolve the problems of the world would be to entrust the Really Big Decisions(tm) to those of us without dicks!

:)

This has been bugging the shit out of me recently. People use this all the time to excuse all kinds of dickish behavior and I'm finally at the point where I want to call bullshit.

We're fleshy, slow, not covered in fur and have no natural weapons. If we were also selfish undercutting and mean to our core, we'd never have made it through the evolutionary lottery. Our chief edge wasn't tool use, that'd be useless if all we did with that is dick each other over, no-it's compassion, caring about the other guy, co-operation and sticking together that brought us from scavenging to building skyscrapers. All animals have that 'get mine' element to them, what made us different (among other things) is that it was we made sure we all got some so we all survived because we needed each other.

We might have gotten too big to recognize everyone as part of the tribe, and that sense of other can override our sense of tribe, but people need to stop excusing being a dick as part of human nature. No my friend, you're just a dick. (not you specifically, the broader 'you.')The social darwinists, or whatever else you want to call them, might need to hear this a little more often. Preferably in a continuous loop. Compassion is part of human nature. Sure, we have competitive, vicious and cruel aspects of our nature too. But they act like were not being true to our nature if we display a little altruism once in a while.

well in terms of nature there's all that "survival of the fittest" which made us compete for resources. so in some ways competition in innate, but it seems to have become more about greed these days. everyone seems to be on a power trip and flaunts their status but out-doing those around them. i think it would be great if we could help eachother and all get along and celebrate each person's talents, but humans can just be so stubborn and selfish sometimes. as much as we have our ideals, we're all guilty of straying from the path of right.

Survival, essentially. Humans remain animal at a fundamental level, hence imbueing us with an imperative to excel to ensure survival. Well, not in the case of Newer Burmecia, who seems to object to anybody desiring to be anything better than average.

Humans by nature are competitive and form into "us and them" groups. So its not a surprise when people want their respect group to be the best.

Religious tension is due to insecurities about the comparative size of 'my god's dick' vs. 'their god's dick'.

And rain is the sweat from the balls of gods swordfighting with their dicks.

Why is it that we often try to out do each other as humans? Religions tell us there is only one way to after life. governments tell their people they are the best people on earth and they should work harder to stay there. Parents tell children to succeed in order to do better than the rest. Why do we seek to out achieve others? Is it not possible that by seeking to out do others, we are cutting humanity short of what its really capable of? Is it our nature to be competitive? Or are we simply brainwashed into such thinking?

It's not human nature that is competitive. All life is competitive. This is why evolution works, this is how we improve, innovate, etc. All animals and organisms are competitive, and even physical nature is - the stronger things win because everything works easier that way.

By out-doing everyone else, you are continuously raising the bar. This is the quality of life that you are raising.

It is the quality of life because you are competing for other people's attention and support of whatever you have made. The people like the best stuff. The best stuff wins, and the bar is raised, starting the cycle over again.

As a Christian I also know that the religion teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven. That instill a sense of pride among followers. They think "Oh I am special, I am going to heaven and not those heathen homos and pagans"

Some? Most definitely, but hardly all.

I know many Christians who feel terrible about themselves and (while they do think that they are special) have no pride about it. Because really, there is nothing to be prideful about: we are saved by grace.

What is grace? UNMERITED favor, meaning you haven't earned, meaning there is nothing for you to puff yourself up about

People always forget that we are to boast only in Christ, not in ourselves: take that "testimonies."

But, this is all off topic.

Biological reasons.

ie: being perceived as "better" provides one with greater stature and therefore you will have a better chance at procreation.

all animals do it in some form or another, humans simply have a very different social structure from most other animals and seem to constantly find new criteria for "better"

Why is it that we often try to out do each other as humans? Religions tell us there is only one way to after life. governments tell their people they are the best people on earth and they should work harder to stay there. Parents tell children to succeed in order to do better than the rest. Why do we seek to out achieve others? Is it not possible that by seeking to out do others, we are cutting humanity short of what its really capable of? Is it our nature to be competitive? Or are we simply brainwashed into such thinking?
Man is an animal, his origins in nature. Every living thing always tries to outperform everything around it to better its own chances for survival and the survival of its children. It is how man came to be just as it is how everything else you see today came about and it is how both man and all life will continue into the unforseeable future. It is our nature and it is foolish to attempt to overcome or deny it.

Ah, if people would only read the thread and realize their comment has already been made and actually answered, the discussion could move forward...

I am not saying its physically easier, I am saying that human beings, as a whole, are more inclined to take than to give.
Well, in that case we're in agreement. Though I'd think everyone is a bit different. Mother Theresa seemed to find it easier to give than to take, so personal preferences come into it.

Clearly, then, the only way to resolve the problems of the world would be to entrust the Really Big Decisions(tm) to those of us without dicks!

:)

I can't argue this point. :p

Why is it that we often try to out do each other as humans? Religions tell us there is only one way to after life. governments tell their people they are the best people on earth and they should work harder to stay there. Parents tell children to succeed in order to do better than the rest. Why do we seek to out achieve others? Is it not possible that by seeking to out do others, we are cutting humanity short of what its really capable of? Is it our nature to be competitive? Or are we simply brainwashed into such thinking?

Because the most successful person has the widest choice of sex partners. Simple.

Why is it that we often try to out do each other as humans? Religions tell us there is only one way to after life. governments tell their people they are the best people on earth and they should work harder to stay there. Parents tell children to succeed in order to do better than the rest. Why do we seek to out achieve others? Is it not possible that by seeking to out do others, we are cutting humanity short of what its really capable of? Is it our nature to be competitive? Or are we simply brainwashed into such thinking?

Speaking from a biological/evolutionary point of view, if you take it that the role of life* is to survive and pass on it's genetic stock, then it becomes easyer to understand why we are competative in nature.

Tree's in the forrest will strive to out grow each other and have evoulved stratagies to do so. Animals on the plains of Africa, either predate each other or have evoluved stratergies to avoid being predated on.

We humans are no differant excepting of course that our brains and therefore our intelelect are more advandced, and so the stratergies that have evoulved to ensure the survival of our genetic stock are differant, and some times surface in the most unlikely of ways.

Is it our nature to be competitive?
It is the nature of life on our planet to be competitive. Humans are not unique in this respect.

Some? Most definitely, but hardly all.

I know many Christians who feel terrible about themselves and (while they do think that they are special) have no pride about it. Because really, there is nothing to be prideful about: we are saved by grace.

What is grace? UNMERITED favor, meaning you haven't earned, meaning there is nothing for you to puff yourself up about

People always forget that we are to boast only in Christ, not in ourselves: take that "testimonies."

But, this is all off topic.
This post of yours has got me wondering a few things, but I don't want to hijack this thread. Would you mind if I used your post to start a new thread?

Seriously, I fucking hate you guys. You've all given the exact same response and none of you have noticed that I've challenged that response.

Seriously, I fucking hate you guys. You've all given the exact same response and none of you have noticed that I've challenged that response.
I'm not sure whether you've ever bothered, but I would recommend you sit down and try to get through one of Ayn Rand's books.

Ah, if people would only read the thread and realize their comment has already been made and actually answered, the discussion could move forward...

Heh it is also human nature to skip a head to the last page once a thread goes more than two pages!

I'm not sure whether you've ever bothered, but I would recommend you sit down and try to get through one of Ayn Rand's books.

I have. I'd rather lick carpet.

I have. I'd rather lick carpet.

:p oh......wait, you aren't talking about sex are you?

:p oh......wait, you aren't talking about sex are you?

You know, right after I hit send I thought, "Hmm, that says something entirely different, doesn't it?"

But I decided to leave it because both interpretations are true...

Sex.

Survival.

Troof beeby!

People who say 'self-interest' are human nature are deluded to say the least, it's just like religion classes the teacher said 'hands up who thinks there is more evil than good in the world', I was the only person who didn't put there hand up, and I was right. If us humans are wholly prone to unmitigated self-seeking we would never have survived, humans are naturally altruistic. As Aristotle rightly put it, to live in 'a state', that is a community, is the highest 'good' while self-seeking the lowest 'evil', this thought is the basis of modern civilization. These great primeval forces have bonded us together for all of human history, but they are being weakened by the emergence of bourgeois society, which has promoted calculative self-interest to the heart of human affairs, and threatens human survival.

People who say 'self-interest' are human nature are deluded to say the least, it's just like religion classes the teacher said 'hands up who thinks there is more evil than good in the world', I was the only person who didn't put there hand up, and I was right. If us humans are wholly prone to unmitigated self-seeking we would never have survived, humans are naturally altruistic. As Aristotle rightly put it, to live in 'a state', that is a community, is the highest 'good' while self-seeking the lowest 'evil', this thought is the basis of modern civilization. These great primeval forces have bonded us together for all of human history, but they are being weakened by the emergence of bourgeois society, which has promoted calculative self-interest to the heart of human affairs, and threatens human survival.

Not self interest over and above that of others but survival of your genetic stock. As a species, and as individuals.

We can a do work together precisly because we are members of the same specices.

I think that nature, human or otherwise, seeks to strike a balance between personal needs and maintaining the health of the system in which we live. We tend to think of humans being ‘dicks’ (or whatever parts you have that can be named in a derogatory manner) in terms of material wants and needs, but there’s no denying that even as individuals we belong to larger systems, natural systems, systems of human constructs all at the same time. We can look out for ourselves all we want, and think and believe that we’re acting as individuals but our actions filter over to others, intentionally or not.

Plants, for example, are competitive. An invasive plant, for instance, can choke out competition for resources in a given area, but they are only successful to the point where they exist within an ecosystem that supports their competition. If they ultimately choke out the resources they require, they die. Animals can live in symbiotic relationships to each other, animals and plants live in relationship to each other, and require each other to survive – there’s a balance that gets struck between competition and cooperation between resources. To think that humans are exempt from any natural system is naïve, at best. We're just critters.

People seek out the best for their personal needs, but obviously, since we live in communities, we’ve somehow evolved to recognize that living within systems is to our benefit. It’s not just about altruism, or tree hugging, or feel good environmentalism, or whatever people want to call it, it’s about interdependence among our own species, and between species.

I have. I'd rather lick carpet.
So in other words the idea that a community's inherent conservatism and pressure to conform actually hurts individuals hasn't come up to you at all?

It's all dick insecurity. That's all it is. Men are afraid the other country's men might have bigger dicks so they shoot high speed dicks at them.

Religious tension is due to insecurities about the comparative size of 'my god's dick' vs. 'their god's dick'.

About two thousand years ago, at a time when people were really going at eachother about theirs and gods' dick sizes, along came a man named Jesus. He told us that it wasn't the size of your dick that mattered, it was how you used it. AFter he got nailed to a giant wooden dick, his message was taken by his people and turned into the proof they needed that Jesus must've had the biggest dick of them all.

*sigh*

That quote is sigworthy. Unfortunately, my sig is packed. Somebody else sig him for me, willya?

This has been bugging the shit out of me recently. People use this all the time to excuse all kinds of dickish behavior and I'm finally at the point where I want to call bullshit.

You are right that it is bullshit to use "innate competitiveness" as a justification for dickishness.


We're fleshy, slow, not covered in fur and have no natural weapons. If we were also selfish undercutting and mean to our core, we'd never have made it through the evolutionary lottery.

You are wrong that selfishness requires that one be mean, or that selfishness and cooperation cannot coexist.

Indeed, evolutionary biology thus far suggests that the very reason we are social animals is because, from a purely selfish perspective, we benefit from it. The reason we, as primates, have developed into the social species that we are is because the benefits to us outweigh the costs (generally speaking).

A major reason we have conflict within our society is that sometimes we perceive the costs of participating in society as outweighing the gains from doing so. Sometimes this perception is wrong, and sometimes it is right.


Our chief edge wasn't tool use, that'd be useless if all we did with that is dick each other over, no-it's compassion, caring about the other guy, co-operation and sticking together that brought us from scavenging to building skyscrapers. All animals have that 'get mine' element to them, what made us different (among other things) is that it was we made sure we all got some so we all survived because we needed each other.

Humans are not unique in our social nature, either. Many other species show higher degrees of "team work" and cooperation than humans, and many other species are far more dependent upon this cooperation for their survival.

Like humans, however, these species have evolved their interdependence because it was the evolutionarily stable solution for their environment. Individuals who cooperated survived and passed on their genes (and/or taught their young behavior patterns), individuals who did not were less successful and did not thrive.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to individuals competing.


We might have gotten too big to recognize everyone as part of the tribe, and that sense of other can override our sense of tribe, but people need to stop excusing being a dick as part of human nature. No my friend, you're just a dick. (not you specifically, the broader 'you.')
Being a dick is part of human nature. That's not an excuse for it, though.

Lots of shitty things are natural. Doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and act like we can't do a thing about them.

Dying is perfectly natural, after all, yet most of us engage in a lot of behaviors that are specifically aimed at keeping ourselves alive. The impulse to be a dick to others is as natural as the impulse to grab an extra share of food. But part of being a full adult human being is learning how to temper natural impulses with empathy and reason.

So in other words the idea that a community's inherent conservatism and pressure to conform actually hurts individuals hasn't come up to you at all?

No, it has come off as so much bullshit.

You are right that it is bullshit to use "innate competitiveness" as a justification for dickishness.
This thread was becoming comedic enough in its sounding chamber quality that I'm almost disappointed someone finally notice that a different answer was given. In the 'careful what you wish for' category, of course the biologist answered.

Well, I can't bitch out just because I'm out matched...


You are wrong that selfishness requires that one be mean, or that selfishness and cooperation cannot coexist.
In this I was relating the behavior excused more than the direct correlations.

Indeed, evolutionary biology thus far suggests that the very reason we are social animals is because, from a purely selfish perspective, we benefit from it. The reason we, as primates, have developed into the social species that we are is because the benefits to us outweigh the costs (generally speaking).
But don't you think laying it out this way sort of assists the misconception that evolutionary developments are choices? These aren't calculations (even though I use 'calculations' to describe why I don't want pets who can kill me-that they run a calculation in their head constantly one whether or not they're better off with me dead or alive and as soon as that calculation comes up dead there's no arguing. If a cat comes up with that she's gotta work really hard at it and I got some time, not so with a giant dog...), but it's not so much a calculation or a decision, but that the ones who had the impulse to pick up his fellow primate had the better chance of survival because he had homies and the the one who'd shiv ya as soon as look at ya didn't.

Hmm...lengthy parentheticals make for lousy sentences...but I literally just woke up so if I try and fix that it will just get worse.

The short version is that it's not so much a calculated decision but rather the ones who helped each other survived better than those who didn't.

There is a side effect that the helpers would help anyone, and occasionally that meant the dicks. I argue, however, that it's the helpers that got us out and not the dicks, as popularly believed (again, I think as an excuse for dickery).

A major reason we have conflict within our society is that sometimes we perceive the costs of participating in society as outweighing the gains from doing so. Sometimes this perception is wrong, and sometimes it is right.

This I got no problem with. But I do add that it's easier to be dismissive of people whom you can't conceive of as part of the tribe. I'm not together enough to find the studies about society sizes (that our natural size is about 150 people and beyond that we have a hard time), otherwise I could bolster this a bit.

Humans are not unique in our social nature, either. Many other species show higher degrees of "team work" and cooperation than humans, and many other species are far more dependent upon this cooperation for their survival.

Like humans, however, these species have evolved their interdependence because it was the evolutionarily stable solution for their environment. Individuals who cooperated survived and passed on their genes (and/or taught their young behavior patterns), individuals who did not were less successful and did not thrive.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to individuals competing.
This is kind of splitting hairs, though, isn't it? The individuals are competing by cooperating, it kind of sounds like having the cake and eating it, too. But I'll admit I stepped in it by insinuating that humans where the only ones who cooperated. Like there are no such things as herds, prides, gaggles, flocks, schools, and murders. That was a misstep on my part.

However, that, and things like elements of generosity and compassion being observed in our closest primate relative I think bolsters my argument that cooperation are more of a part of our make up than "Fuck you I got mine" competitiveness.

It's not to say that competitiveness didn't exist even within the tribe (for position), but I don't want to confuse the language of evolution for actual behavior.


Being a dick is part of human nature. That's not an excuse for it, though.
This is strictly true, being a dick doesn't come out of nowhere, or from an external source, like we where all cool but then someone ate the dick plant and it added a dick gene to the pool. Everything we do is part of our nature to one degree or another. My argument is that we survived in spite of it instead of because of it.

Lots of shitty things are natural. Doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and act like we can't do a thing about them.

Dying is perfectly natural, after all, yet most of us engage in a lot of behaviors that are specifically aimed at keeping ourselves alive. The impulse to be a dick to others is as natural as the impulse to grab an extra share of food. But part of being a full adult human being is learning how to temper natural impulses with empathy and reason.

I'm saying that empathy and reason are a primary part of our natural impulses.

Is it not possible that by seeking to out do others, we are cutting humanity short of what its really capable of?

No. In stopping to strife to better ourselves, we'll stop, or even reverse development. That's not our choosing, but just the way the universe works, and all our evolution has made us is only a response to the way things are in this universe. We can only reach our maximum by continuing this strife. An in the great scheme, people are cooperating in this effort. To take another person as benchmark to what you should strife for seems already to be cooperation (unless you take your chance and smack him on the head when he's not looking).

But anyways, this is just IMO.

This post of yours has got me wondering a few things, but I don't want to hijack this thread. Would you mind if I used your post to start a new thread?

Not at all, if you have not already done so.

No, it has come off as so much bullshit.
Strange. I see it happen all the time...ever tried being smart in high school?

Strange. I see it happen all the time...ever tried being smart in high school?

Yep, totally was. And rolled with the smartest guys, too. (Like the top of their respective classes). Even with that we never adapted that 'we're better than you so we get special privilege' thing, though.

Religions tell us there is only one way to after life.?? Which religions in particular?

Yep, totally was. And rolled with the smartest guys, too. (Like the top of their respective classes). Even with that we never adapted that 'we're better than you so we get special privilege' thing, though.
The question is whether your peers ever appreciated your ability and tried to allow you to use it to its full extent.

The question is whether your peers ever appreciated your ability and tried to allow you to use it to its full extent.

Never had a problem with it. There was some resistance, but ultimately I realized that came from within and not from without. But no, my peers weren't holding me back.

Look man, I'm no conformist by most standards. But I've accomplished way more collectively with the help of others than I have striking out on my own.

Never had a problem with it. There was some resistance, but ultimately I realized that came from within and not from without. But no, my peers weren't holding me back.
I suppose you can consider yourself luckier than me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law

Well, I can't bitch out just because I'm out matched...

I only responded because you'd made good points. :D


But don't you think laying it out this way sort of assists the misconception that evolutionary developments are choices? These aren't calculations (even though I use 'calculations' to describe why I don't want pets who can kill me-that they run a calculation in their head constantly one whether or not they're better off with me dead or alive and as soon as that calculation comes up dead there's no arguing. If a cat comes up with that she's gotta work really hard at it and I got some time, not so with a giant dog...), but it's not so much a calculation or a decision, but that the ones who had the impulse to pick up his fellow primate had the better chance of survival because he had homies and the the one who'd shiv ya as soon as look at ya didn't.

It's still a choice, whether or not it's a conscious one.

If a rat is in a maze with two possible paths, the rat has a choice. If it has no prior experience to go on, the choice is random for the rat. If the rat has previous experience or some kind of external stimuli suggesting a better direction, the rat will generally choose accordingly.

The fact that the rat is not "conscious" in the way that we humans are conscious doesn't negate the fact that the individual animal's choice does impact the outcome.


The short version is that it's not so much a calculated decision but rather the ones who helped each other survived better than those who didn't.

Absolutely. But, as primates, we have become increasingly able to plan ahead and deliberately--consciously--make choices that increase our likelihood of success. We rely less on instinct and more on individual experience and judgment.


There is a side effect that the helpers would help anyone, and occasionally that meant the dicks. I argue, however, that it's the helpers that got us out and not the dicks, as popularly believed (again, I think as an excuse for dickery).

Well, the reason that dickery still exists is because it, too, can be an evolutionarily valid path. If you can exploit others enough to get what you want, but not quite enough to get yourself booted from the community, then you may prosper.


This is kind of splitting hairs, though, isn't it? The individuals are competing by cooperating, it kind of sounds like having the cake and eating it, too.

I guess it sort of is.

My point was simply that competition doesn't necessarily stop when cooperation begins. And vice versa.


However, that, and things like elements of generosity and compassion being observed in our closest primate relative I think bolsters my argument that cooperation are more of a part of our make up than "Fuck you I got mine" competitiveness.

There are plenty of selfish reasons why an individual would benefit from showing generosity and compassion.

For instance, if I'm enjoying a time of prosperity and good health, but another individual in my group is suffering, it may be wise for me to help them out. Even though this may cost me something in the short term, it may win me an ally and a friend who will be more likely to aid me in the future.

The thing is, this will remain true even if I don't think about it that way. If I'm just a nice person who likes being nice to others, and I don't actively make those calculated decisions about allies, I still will be making the allies! Indeed, I may even make more of them because people see me as a sincerely nice person! So, from a survival standpoint, being nice will benefit me.

In other words, there can be "selfish" benefits to kind behavior, even if the individual doesn't think of them in selfish terms at all.


This is strictly true, being a dick doesn't come out of nowhere, or from an external source, like we where all cool but then someone ate the dick plant and it added a dick gene to the pool. Everything we do is part of our nature to one degree or another. My argument is that we survived in spite of it instead of because of it.

I have to admit that I think it's both.


I'm saying that empathy and reason are a primary part of our natural impulses.
The thing about humans is that we still have instinct, but our reason and conscious judgment are almost always able to over-ride instinct. I'd say that's pretty important, and if we have thrived with this ability to over-ride impulses then we should remember that.

The thing about humans is that we still have instinct, but our reason and conscious judgment are almost always able to over-ride instinct. I'd say that's pretty important, and if we have thrived with this ability to over-ride impulses then we should remember that.

Simply adding information here:

They've just done an experiment and I think it's with Pacman where they measure the brain as your Pacman is chased by ghosts. You receive an physical electric shock if the ghost catches you.

While the ghost is far away players predominantly use the prefrontal cortex region of the brain, which is used for complex planning tasks.

But as the ghost closes in, activity shifts rapidly to a more primitive part of the brain called the periaqueductal gray (totally has to look that up), which governs quick-response survival mechanisms, such as the familiar fight, flight or freeze reactions.

I looked it up now: Link (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2197443/pac-man-reveals-response-threats)

Religions tell us there is only one way to after life.
How one gets there is different. There are different ways of getting there; each religion addresses this is a unique way, although the end is invariably the same. That follows the analogy that all roads lead to Rome. It doesn't matter what path you take; there is only a single, final destination. That is the one thing that all religions truly have in common, the end.

Simply adding information here:

They've just done an experiment and I think it's with Pacman where they measure the brain as your Pacman is chased by ghosts. You receive an physical electric shock if the ghost catches you.

While the ghost is far away players predominantly use the prefrontal cortex region of the brain, which is used for complex planning tasks.

But as the ghost closes in, activity shifts rapidly to a more primitive part of the brain called the periaqueductal gray (totally has to look that up), which governs quick-response survival mechanisms, such as the familiar fight, flight or freeze reactions.

I looked it up now: Link (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2197443/pac-man-reveals-response-threats)
Cool! I hadn't read about that before.

One thing I've read about is that humans tend to rely more and more on instinct the more extreme or stressful a situation becomes.

One interesting theory I read went like this:

Stressful situations are usually stressful specifically because we aren't used to them and are freaked out because we don't know what to do. (In other words, we aren't stressed out by what we are familiar with and used to handling.)

This means that a stressful situation is most often also a situation in which we don't have much experience of our own to draw upon.

Since we don't have much experience on which to base our individual judgment, we rely more and more on instinctive reflexes to guide our actions.

I think it's an interesting possibility.

Cool! I hadn't read about that before.

One thing I've read about is that humans tend to rely more and more on instinct the more extreme or stressful a situation becomes.

One interesting theory I read went like this:

Stressful situations are usually stressful specifically because we aren't used to them and are freaked out because we don't know what to do. (In other words, we aren't stressed out by what we are familiar with and used to handling.)

This means that a stressful situation is most often also a situation in which we don't have much experience of our own to draw upon.

Since we don't have much experience on which to base our individual judgment, we rely more and more on instinctive reflexes to guide our actions.

I think it's an interesting possibility.

Umm yes, and a likely probablity .

Umm yes, and a likely probablity .
Well, there are other possibilities, too.

Some people take a pretty mechanical position, and say that our tendency to act on instinct in stress situations is simply because our thinking process is too slow compared to instinctive responses. Or because our brains get bathed in neurotransmitters and hormones and such which interfere with conscious thinking more than instinctive reaction.

It's daunting, sometimes, how many good explanations one can think of for the same phenomenon...

One thing I've read about is that humans tend to rely more and more on instinct the more extreme or stressful a situation becomes.

One interesting theory I read went like this: Stressful situations are usually stressful specifically because we aren't used to them and are freaked out because we don't know what to do. (In other words, we aren't stressed out by what we are familiar with and used to handling.) snip...

Which is why, when looking at a babies expressions, I often feel that the only thought going through their head is: WHAT THE F*** IS HAPPENING NOW!!!! JESUS CHRIST GET ME OUT OF HERE!!!!!

Yet, in all honesty, I'm not sure this theory is fully correct otherwise we'd find it hard to learn, I think it needs to be a factor of adrenaline rising that shuts down the thinking part of the brain and I lean more towards the second theory, that when in danger the brain shouldn't be thinking about options, it should be acting.

Having said that, once one has experience, and this can be seen in driving cars, we tend to have quicker reactions in terms of thinking about options simply because we have experienced this before - we can think quicker due to built up neural pathways of experience.

So I tend to think of neural pathways as 'ways' that become more built up over time, like an ancient path becoming a modern highway.

I think that's why we become less flexible as we're older, because it's harder to change the direction of a highway than it is a newly formed path.

I keep saying 'I think' but I'm just hedging because I don't want to dig up cites.

Humans compete because doing so provides greater marginal benefits than working as a group.

Humans compete because doing so provides greater marginal benefits than working as a group.

Almost correct...People compete because they want to see others do worse than themselves: Everyone* wants to be more special and better than the fellow compatriot.

Personal prestige, envy and greed are the great motivators of humanity in general and Western world (*cough*USA*cough*) in particular.

Aye..It's is a messed up crazy world where people want to out-compete others even in charity work because doing good for the sake of it just doesn't cut it :D

*The level depends quite a bit on the cultural environment and personal viewpoint

Humans compete because doing so provides greater marginal benefits than working as a group.

That's only because we've been raised in Western cultures, which emphasize competition, as well as the capitalist economic system, which rewards not only competition, but also passing off external costs to others.

Other cultures and economic systems emphasize different priorities, and not surprisingly, people are more likely to cooperate in everyday life then compete.

I only responded because you'd made good points. :D
I'll take it.


It's still a choice, whether or not it's a conscious one.

If a rat is in a maze with two possible paths, the rat has a choice. If it has no prior experience to go on, the choice is random for the rat. If the rat has previous experience or some kind of external stimuli suggesting a better direction, the rat will generally choose accordingly.

The fact that the rat is not "conscious" in the way that we humans are conscious doesn't negate the fact that the individual animal's choice does impact the outcome.


Absolutely. But, as primates, we have become increasingly able to plan ahead and deliberately--consciously--make choices that increase our likelihood of success. We rely less on instinct and more on individual experience and judgment.
Doesn't this become a bit of a chicken/egg-tomato/tomaato thing? If it is a choice to be cooperative then why isn't it a choice to be a dick? If we're talking primal levels of development and success/failure, I would argue that the compassion act is as much of an impulse as being a dick and therefore cooperation and compassion is at leastjust as much part of our nature as dickery. My argument would be more, explained below.


Well, the reason that dickery still exists is because it, too, can be an evolutionarily valid path. If you can exploit others enough to get what you want, but not quite enough to get yourself booted from the community, then you may prosper.
I'm going to call this my Dr. Smith Proposal.

Take Dr. Smith from Lost In Space. If we consider the intrepid space travelers in that show as a completely artificial petri dish of human development, we have the compassionate and cooperative Robinson family and the dickish and self interested Dr. Smith.

The Robinsons do a pretty good job of surviving, the rescue each other, look after each other, and as a result survive. Their success includes Dr. Smith, total dick. Without the group, he'd be dead. Without him, the group might not actually be lost.

The Robinsons are alive in spite of Dr. Smith, but because of their overall compassion Dr. Smith still gets to mince about. In fact, there are moments when Smith has to feign cooperation to not test the limits of the Robinson's compassion.

What I'm saying with my obviously flawed example (it was not, after all, a documentary) is that given the conditions (hostile environment, slow and fleshy, no natural weapons) cooperation would have to have been more useful than dickery.


I guess it sort of is.

My point was simply that competition doesn't necessarily stop when cooperation begins. And vice versa.
Technically yes. After all, a football team cooperates to beat the other football team. I should have said basketball, then I could use the notion of the ball hog weakening the team overall...

And basketball is better...


There are plenty of selfish reasons why an individual would benefit from showing generosity and compassion.

For instance, if I'm enjoying a time of prosperity and good health, but another individual in my group is suffering, it may be wise for me to help them out. Even though this may cost me something in the short term, it may win me an ally and a friend who will be more likely to aid me in the future.

The thing is, this will remain true even if I don't think about it that way. If I'm just a nice person who likes being nice to others, and I don't actively make those calculated decisions about allies, I still will be making the allies! Indeed, I may even make more of them because people see me as a sincerely nice person! So, from a survival standpoint, being nice will benefit me.

In other words, there can be "selfish" benefits to kind behavior, even if the individual doesn't think of them in selfish terms at all.
But doesn't this still make it "I win even if I don't win" (not the argument, I just couldn't think of a way to put it). Sure, surviving is personally beneficial, but if everything that's done that results in something beneficial then it designates success as selfish and I think that dilutes the term. At that point it becomes meaningless in its ability to explain our behavior because it really is just saying all success is selfishness, like they mean the same thing.

In the abstract that is true, but I don't think it actually explains behaviors necessarily.


I have to admit that I think it's both.


The thing about humans is that we still have instinct, but our reason and conscious judgment are almost always able to over-ride instinct. I'd say that's pretty important, and if we have thrived with this ability to over-ride impulses then we should remember that.


Regardless of which one of us is 'right,' this is true.

This has been bugging the shit out of me recently. People use this all the time to excuse all kinds of dickish behavior and I'm finally at the point where I want to call bullshit.

We're fleshy, slow, not covered in fur and have no natural weapons. If we were also selfish undercutting and mean to our core, we'd never have made it through the evolutionary lottery. Our chief edge wasn't tool use, that'd be useless if all we did with that is dick each other over, no-it's compassion, caring about the other guy, co-operation and sticking together that brought us from scavenging to building skyscrapers. All animals have that 'get mine' element to them, what made us different (among other things) is that it was we made sure we all got some so we all survived because we needed each other.

We might have gotten too big to recognize everyone as part of the tribe, and that sense of other can override our sense of tribe, but people need to stop excusing being a dick as part of human nature. No my friend, you're just a dick. (not you specifically, the broader 'you.')
This has been bugging the shit out of me recently. People use this all the time to excuse all kinds of dickish behavior and I'm finally at the point where I want to call bullshit. Being contrary to everything we know/see about nature/human nature up till now, I have to ask, where's the proof for your "co-operation" exclusive theory?

This has been bugging the shit out of me recently. People use this all the time to excuse all kinds of dickish behavior and I'm finally at the point where I want to call bullshit. Being contrary to everything we know/see about nature/human nature up till now, I have to ask, where's the proof for your "co-operation" exclusive theory?

The rest of the post...

We might have gotten too big to recognize everyone as part of the tribe, and that sense of other can override our sense of tribe, but people need to stop excusing being a dick as part of human nature. No my friend, you're just a dick. (not you specifically, the broader 'you.')
Not all humans are part of the same tribe, though, nor were they ever meant to be. Sure, members of the same tribe may watch each others backs and work together, but humans have always been wary of, and willing to be a dick to, people they hardly know.
The modern West, however, doesn't lend itself to tribalism and the good times that it can create because people are so mobile and are constantly surrounded by strangers.

Not all humans are part of the same tribe, though, nor were they ever meant to be. Sure, members of the same tribe may watch each others backs and work together, but humans have always been wary of, and willing to be a dick to, people they hardly know.
Kinda what I just said, really...

The modern West, however, doesn't lend itself to tribalism and the good times that it can create because people are so mobile and are constantly surrounded by strangers.
You'll have to better explain that.

That's only because we've been raised in Western cultures, which emphasize competition, as well as the capitalist economic system, which rewards not only competition, but also passing off external costs to others.

Other cultures and economic systems emphasize different priorities, and not surprisingly, people are more likely to cooperate in everyday life then compete.
But those systems require coersion to function, suggesting that not all humans would willingly adopt them without being forced.

But those systems require coersion to function, suggesting that not all humans would willingly adopt them without being forced.

No, they don't. Societies like the Inuit, Iroquois, early Moche and other more organic societies were not only cooperative, as opposed to competitive, but are also among the least coercive of known human societies.

Kinda what I just said, really...
Except I added the bit about how people are wary of and willing to assault strangers.
You'll have to better explain that.
Tribes would tend to be small affairs consisting mainly of people who had spent their entire lives together or had done something especially noteworthy to be welcomed into the group. Most interaction would be restricted to being between members of the same tribe simply because that was who was around.
On the other hand, modern cities can contain anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of people, many of whom are only there on the short term. These people have no common interests, don't know each other, and, therefore, have no reason to give a damn about one another.

Except I added the bit about how people are wary of and willing to assault strangers.

Tribes would tend to be small affairs consisting mainly of people who had spent their entire lives together or had done something especially noteworthy to be welcomed into the group. Most interaction would be restricted to being between members of the same tribe simply because that was who was around.
On the other hand, modern cities can contain anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of people, many of whom are only there on the short term. These people have no common interests, don't know each other, and, therefore, have no reason to give a damn about one another.
Yeah, still kinda what I already said. Don't know what you're trying to add here.

Yeah, still kinda what I already said. Don't know what you're trying to add here.
How can you, having thought and said all that, fail to see that being a dick to other people is an essential facet of human nature, then?

No, they don't. Societies like the Inuit, Iroquois, early Moche and other more organic societies were not only cooperative, as opposed to competitive, but are also among the least coercive of known human societies.
Point taken. In some circumstances, cooperation may be advantageous for individuals.

But clearly not in all cases. Otherwise, why did any competitive systems ever arise?

How can you, having thought and said all that, fail to see that being a dick to other people is an essential facet of human nature, then?

Connect those dots.

Connect those dots.
What dots?
Your premise (It is not in human nature to dick over other people) is completely contradicted by your own arguments (It is in human nature to dick over strangers, people are surrounded almost entirely by strangers).

What dots?
Your premise (It is not in human nature to dick over other people) is completely contradicted by your own arguments (It is in human nature to dick over strangers, people are surrounded almost entirely by strangers).
It's not a natural human state to be surrounded by strangers.

He's asserting we don't behave badly toward people we know (and traditionally humans only ever met people they'd known for years), but in modern society we most often are surrounded by people we don't know, so we don't treat them like people.

'Human nature' is as broad as the human race itself. Why don't people just get this?

For example, it's in my own personal nature to help people out as much as possible, for other people, they're just not into it.

Nothing wrong with either of the two, we're all different people, why should it be expected that we all act the same way?

What dots?
Your premise (It is not in human nature to dick over other people) is completely contradicted by your own arguments (It is in human nature to dick over strangers, people are surrounded almost entirely by strangers).

You don't understand my argument. Please reread it.

Point taken. In some circumstances, cooperation may be advantageous for individuals.

But clearly not in all cases. Otherwise, why did any competitive systems ever arise?

It's hard to say exactly why organic societies abandoned cooperative systems for competitive ones, but the anthropological evidence does demonstrate one thing: they fought tooth and nail to prevent that from occuring. Even the rise of the autocratic Aztec state could not completely destroy the cooperative clans that were the economic base of Aztec society. It minimized their power, collected tribute from them, but it could not destroy them.

It was very similar in early Sumeria. The cooperative economic systems endured for long after the rise of the Kingships and the state. However slow it took, one thing is clear: cooperative institutions innately oppose centralized power. Perhaps the rise of competitive systems was more a function of the sovereign's benefit than the people's benefit. In any case, when the state became permanent in Sumeria, and start to dismantle the tribal assembly, cooperative economic's days were numbered.

Families still exist, right? Friendships still exist. All sorts of "cooperative" groupings are still around.

Capitalism doesn't prevent cooperatives from arising. Indeed, one could say that because in a true capitalist environment no one is ever forced to do anything against their will (given the constraints imposed by reality), every trade is a mutually agreed upon, mutually beneficial action. It's by definition a cooperative system.

The sick part is when people act as though being cooperative means having to care about someone you have never met and never even heard of. No ancient Aztecs or Sumerians would have given two thoughts to someone outside their family grouping starving to death, because they were busy making themselves better off (and, if I may speculate, sometimes by competing with other clans...).

Families still exist, right? Friendships still exist. All sorts of "cooperative" groupings are still around.

Capitalism doesn't prevent cooperatives from arising. Indeed, one could say that because in a true capitalist environment no one is ever forced to do anything against their will (given the constraints imposed by reality), every trade is a mutually agreed upon, mutually beneficial action. It's by definition a cooperative system.

The sick part is when people act as though being cooperative means having to care about someone you have never met and never even heard of. No ancient Aztecs or Sumerians would have given two thoughts to someone outside their family grouping starving to death, because they were busy making themselves better off (and, if I may speculate, sometimes by competing with other clans...).

I think it's sick to not care about someone starving.

Humans actually have a biological drive towards cooperation, not competition. That's why most people feel good when they help someone out. It is how we survived to become the dominant species on planet earth.

However, resources are scarce, and we do have the capacity for greed because of our self-awareness. In the ancient past, different collectives had to compete for access to resources. In certain parts of the world, the collective was limited to an extensive family-unit. In some of these places, the family merely became an extension of the Patriarch's ego. It is from these parts of the world that various egocentric world views emerged, having been put forth by these Patriarchs.
It is to humanity's possibly infinite misfortune that these places were abundant in resources that would be necessary to conquer the world and that their greed led them to do so.

I think it's sick to not care about someone starving.
Well, in that case I don't understand why you went to a historic racing event recently when you could have used that money to donate for food aid or well digging in Africa.

Let's face it, I'm sure we care to some degree but emotionally most of us are unable to truly put the plight of someone we only know from TV screens equal to our own (or our friends' and families') needs and wants.