NationStates Jolt Archive

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?

To say that human beings are merely self-serving or selfless is clearly not a correct answer. People exhibit elements of both sides of the coin, as well as bizarre motivations that have nothing to do with either one's own good, another's good or the greater good. The Greater Good! There's all sorts of weird side motivations too.

Humans are altruistic punishes. We cooperate with others and then punish them if they do not reciprocate even if it comes at great costs to ourselves. (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119760.html)

To say that human beings are merely self-serving or selfless is clearly not a correct answer. People exhibit elements of both sides of the coin, as well as bizarre motivations that have nothing to do with either one's own good, another's good or the greater good. The Greater Good! There's all sorts of weird side motivations too.

Well, would you agree that being too altruistic or too selfish can be harmful?

I'm just curious because I want to try being evil for a day tomorrow.

Well, would you agree that being too altruistic or too selfish can be harmful?

Extremely. Like all other things in life, there is a balance between selfishness and altruism.

I'm just curious because I want to try being evil for a day tomorrow.

Generally a bad idea.

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?
What a bizzare thing to believe, if humans were innately selfish then our civilization would never have survived.

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?

All creatures are self serving, thats life.

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?

Young children exhibit "innately altruistic" tendencies. If you drop something, they will pick it up for you, if you signify you are in pain, they will tend to investigate, etc. Human are a pack or herd animal (depending whether our "group" is on the offense or the defense) and, as such, as we've certain programmed tendencies that are functionally designed to maintain this method of organization.

I believe humans are self serving. But since we are also highly social animals, we don't normally do something that will harm others; we are self serving in that we take what benefits us as a whole, the environment for example. On a smaller intimate level, it really depends on one's personality, and one's personality is heavily based on childhood and past experiences. We are self serving, but not in the way that we harm everyone else just to benefit ourself all the time.

Humans are altruistic punishes. We cooperate with others and then punish them if they do not reciprocate even if it comes at great costs to ourselves. (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119760.html)

That's really interesting.
Thanks

All creatures are self serving, thats life.

Hardly, without human solidarity we wouldn't be having this conversation right now in a common language.

Also I find it much more pleasant to assume the best in people and expect them to be honest.

True that could be called naive and I know people who, due to their own actions shouldn't really deserve ti be treated that way.

However, Despite this. I have found it much more rewarding than when I tended to be suspicious and assumed the worst.

Hardly, without human solidarity we wouldn't be having this conversation right now in a common language.

Meh that does not dismiss what I say at all. Do you work, why, for what reason? Do you eat? Do you breath?

Are you saying that you never put yourself, your wants, and needs before others?

All living things are self serving, a plant puts out seed to ensure the continuation of it's genetic stock, as do animals, as do we. Life is self serving.

I'm just curious because I want to try being evil for a day tomorrow.

How?

What do you mean by "evil?"

Are all humans self serving?

Usually. Most places charge extra for full service. *nod*

Meh that does not dismiss what I say at all. Do you work, why, for what reason? Do you eat? Do you breath?

Are you saying that you never put yourself, your wants, and needs before others?

All living things are self serving, a plant puts out seed to ensure the continuation of it's genetic stock, as do animals, as do we. Life is self serving.

Your explaining materialism to a Marxist? But people do things against their material interest all the time, whether it be motivated by religion, politics, whatever.

What a bizzare thing to believe, if humans were innately selfish then our civilization would never have survived.

And yet the belief that individuals are rational, self-interested and will seek to maximise their own utility is one of the foundations of neoclassical economics. A lot of things in neoclassical economics are bollocks though.

Self-serving humans; convenience food for cannibals.

And yet the belief that individuals are rational, self-interested and will seek to maximise their own utility is one of the foundations of neoclassical economics. A lot of things in neoclassical economics are bollocks though.

People aren't rational though, some may act like it sometimes but fundamentally us humans can be swayed by the most cheap propaganda and emotional ploys to hysteria or whatever they wish to emote. If anything the liberal hogwash that some people around NSG parrot is what is the more ludicrous position.

Right, humans are rational, next you'll be telling me Freud was right about human nature.

People aren't rational though, some may act like it sometimes but fundamentally us humans can be swayed by the most cheap propaganda and emotional ploys to hysteria or whatever they wish to emote. If anything the liberal hogwash that some people around NSG parrot is what is the more ludicrous position.

Right, humans are rational, next you'll be telling me Freud was right about human nature.

Well I actually told you what neoclassical economics says not what I think, although I did hint at my own thoughts rather strongly with my final statement.

People aren't intrinsically irrational though either: offer them a choice of identical products to buy and they'll generally buy the cheaper one. This is a bit of a digression though.

Your explaining materialism to a Marxist? But people do things against their material interest all the time, whether it be motivated by religion, politics, whatever.

I'll not ghet into the whole Marxist thing with you, except to say that it wont work in the long run not without evverbody thinking alike.

However I never said anywhere that people a 100% self serving. We are a social creature, but for most of us what we do is for ourselfs and our familes(an extention of our own interests).

Do you for example give all of your earnings away?

Well I actually told you what neoclassical economics says not what I think, although I did hint at my own thoughts rather strongly with my final statement.

People aren't intrinsically irrational though either: offer them a choice of identical products to buy and they'll generally buy the cheaper one. This is a bit of a digression though.
I think people are capable of both irrationality and rationality, but I think depending on the material conditions of the individual this can be different. For example a successfully bourgeois CEO may have the luxury of thinking in clear rational terms. While a poor downtrodden worker may on the other hand be swayed in their economic desperation to 'transcend' their horrible existance but indulging in fantastic like ideologies.

People aren't rational though, some may act like it sometimes but fundamentally us humans can be swayed by the most cheap propaganda and emotional ploys to hysteria or whatever they wish to emote. If anything the liberal hogwash that some people around NSG parrot is what is the more ludicrous position.

Right, humans are rational, next you'll be telling me Freud was right about human nature.

Bwahaha how can one even argue for the statement 'Humans are not rational' without using tools of rationality thereby proving the statement to be false?

If humans are not rational, how can I understand what you write, how can you understand the written form of communication, how can you even communicate?

However I never said anywhere that people a 100% self serving. We are a social creature, but for most of us what we do is for ourselfs and our familes(an extention of our own interests).


There is an argument that even the altruist is self-serving. Let's say I get a certain amount of pleasure from giving a poor person $100. If I can't get any more pleasure from buying something with that $100 it's probably in my own interests to give the money away and get more pleasure from that. Altruistic but self-serving.

Bwahaha how can one even argue for the statement 'Humans are not rational' without using tools of rationality thereby proving the statement to be false?

If humans are not rational, how can I understand what you write, how can you understand the written form of communication, how can you even communicate?
You misunderstand me, I said that humans are prone to getting swept up into the demagoguery of irrationality and thereupon can 'forget' their own material interests.

I think people are capable of both irrationality and rationality, but I think depending on the material conditions of the individual this can be different. For example a successfully bourgeois CEO may have the luxury of thinking in clear rational terms. While a poor downtrodden worker may on the other hand be swayed in their economic desperation to 'transcend' their horrible existance but indulging in fantastic like ideologies.

I would agree that material conditions and institutional frameworks play a big part in forming people's ideas of that is and isn't rational. The point I was trying to make about neoclassical assumptions and rational self-interest was that I find it interesting that when most people are assumed to be good the very economic system, that is more or less accepted as orthodoxy in the West, expects not a lot more of people to not do harm to others or their property and to act in their own (perceived) self-interest.

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?

People are not genetically programmed to put themselves before others.
If they were, they would never have formed family groups, tribes or any other form of society.
People have the option to be altruistic, and the option to be selfish (most social animals work that way). And they will act as they see fit.

Genetically, yes, the personal advantage is sought at all times. But that advantage might well lie in cooperation or selfless acts, as the material and non-material awards for both can be great. That however does by no means mean that anybody who acts selflessly does so for ulterior motives. What our genes want and what we want isn't necessarily the same.

See, the most powerful tool genes have to influence our behaviour is "feeling good". Our genes want to be spread, so sex feels good. Our genes want to keep us alive, so food tastes good, and so does sitting in the shade on a hot day. Our genes profit from us working together, so people in general feel good when helping others.

it doesn't really make sense to be otherwise. that's not to say that being good to others is necessarily excluded by being selfish. helping others has it's rewards.

Usually. Most places charge extra for full service. *nod*

Especially brothels.

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?

being "altruistic" usually means letting yourself be taken advantage of by others until you finally realize that you dont have to say "yes" to every request.

See, the most powerful tool genes have to influence our behaviour is “feeling good”. Our genes want to be spread, so sex feels good. Our genes want to keep us alive, so food tastes good, and so does sitting in the shade on a hot day. Our genes profit from us working together, so people in general feel good when helping others.
But genes aren’t responsible for release of serotonin, dopamine, etc.

Are they?

But genes aren’t responsible for release of serotonin, dopamine, etc.

Are they?

They determine when and under what circumstances those chemicals will be released, yes.

They determine when and under what circumstances those chemicals will be released, yes.
OK, I see.

I thought you were meaning they are directly caused each instance of dopamine release, rather than they determine the when and why through the evolutionary process.

EDIT: Of course, they don't determine every instance. We can manually induce such releases.

OK, I see.

I thought you were meaning they are directly caused each instance of dopamine release, rather than they determine the when and why through the evolutionary process.

EDIT: Of course, they don't determine every instance. We can manually induce such releases.

They don't need to... think of them as programming. Any form of input will result in a certain chemical reaction in the brain. All the genes set up is what type of input triggers what chemical release, and how much of it.

survival is an instinct of all living creatures. so, for that matter, is gratification.

the trouble with humans, is that what has, through a series of historical chances which could as easily have gone a wild diversity of other ways, a culture has come to world dominance, which motivates them to persue gratification where little or none is ever to be found, to the extent that it has reached the point where the survival of all living organizims on the planet are threatened by it.

if people did not blind themselves, had not gotten 'comfortable' with blinding themselves, for generation after generation, where even their own personal best intrests lie, this problem would never have gotten near so far out of hand as it has.

the avoidance of causing suffering to each other, really is in the best intrest of each of us individually. and i'm not talking about some big magical pie in the sky sugar daddy either, but the mechanism by which the conditions we have to live and deal with, are created.

very few really 'bennifit' from the suffering of others, and the manor of that 'bennifitting' is far less gratifying then either they, or those who mistakenly envy them, realize or imagine.

the problem is not insoluable, though again those who are exploiting it would like very much for everyone to continue to assume that it is.

but i know i have seen, and i think most people have, times and places, where other perspectives have, can and do, work better. not just for a generic everyone, but for each of their individual selves in it as well.

and in the here and now, not just some pie in the sky next life either.

so is everyone "self serving"? yes, to a degree, but those who well and truly understand what best serves that self, realise they are best served by precisely the kind of world it takes 'altruistic' consideration for others to create.

=^^=
.../\...

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?
In the world in which we live, Empathy is generally not pragmatic. Resources are finite, and to live is to deny someone else life. Merely self-sustaining requires that we live for ourselves and try to pretend that people half-way around the world aren't starving to put food on our plates, or that the homeless aren't there because they have nothing to give back to the world.

I am convinced that people are inherently social and empathetic. The problem is that if they want to stay alive, their empathy needs to be repressed, and that for some, having sacrificed much to get to where they are leaves them bitter and unwilling to help others avoid such sacrifice.

It would be great if this wasn't the case, and I think with a total economic collapse looming over the horizon we may well be forced to start the process soon, but for the moment, people fight the world to keep going, and I've accepted that as given.

I think I could agree with the basic sentiment of this thread.

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?

No. Although many people are in certain socieites, that is simply a case of culture, and of some individuals. Many people are not, paticularly in cultures that encourage or value alturistic actions and behaviour, but also anywhere.

How?

What do you mean by "evil?"
Just be less nice than usual? :P

There is an argument that even the altruist is self-serving. Let's say I get a certain amount of pleasure from giving a poor person $100. If I can't get any more pleasure from buying something with that $100 it's probably in my own interests to give the money away and get more pleasure from that. Altruistic but self-serving.
That’s a great point! Still, I wonder if all the “altruistic” people were surveyed, how many would actually count that as self-serving.

Usually. Most places charge extra for full service. *nod*
:P

being "altruistic" usually means letting yourself be taken advantage of by others until you finally realize that you dont have to say "yes" to every request.
YES! Exactly! I think that’s more or less what I was getting at but couldn’t articulate.

I am convinced that people are inherently social and empathetic. The problem is that if they want to stay alive, their empathy needs to be repressed, and that for some, having sacrificed much to get to where they are leaves them bitter and unwilling to help others avoid such sacrifice.
Well said.

No. Although many people are in certain socieites, that is simply a case of culture, and of some individuals. Many people are not, paticularly in cultures that encourage or value alturistic actions and behaviour, but also anywhere.
Could you give a few examples of cultures that promote altriusm compared to some that do not? Ex: America?

There is an argument that even the altruist is self-serving. Let's say I get a certain amount of pleasure from giving a poor person $100. If I can't get any more pleasure from buying something with that $100 it's probably in my own interests to give the money away and get more pleasure from that. Altruistic but self-serving.

That’s a great point! Still, I wonder if all the “altruistic” people were surveyed, how many would actually count that as self-serving.


Probably none of them because being altruistic for ones own benefit brings a rather selfish notion to what is usually thought of being selfless.

If there's another explanation then what do you think it is though? Giving because it makes you feel good is certainly plausible. Giving because you think the wider social consequences will be positive, therefore leading to the type of society you'd prefer to live in might be another (game theory might well get in the way here if you think no one else is likely to contribute positively and you'd be wasting your money, but let's not overcomplicate things). At a more base level you might prefer to give someone $100 to keep them in food and shelter for fear that they may steal $200 from you if you don't.

Whatever you think, there are are some fairly rational explanations for altruism that most people would probably prefer not to consider.

All beings are selfish. If they act without self-interest at heart, that means they're acting against their will*, meaning they are forced to do something. At best it's an undesirable exception, if it happens regularly it will lead to the death of the being.

What exactly that self-interest is on the other hand is not a given at all times. I can help others because it makes me feel good, or because they give me something back, or because a life without them would be undesirable for me. So I'm still being self-interested, but in everyday language someone would call me "self-less" (an oxymoron, really...).

*And no, I have not seen any convincing argument that duty is anything but an attempt to present some desires as more important than others.

Well, would you agree that being too altruistic or too selfish can be harmful?

Well, you can only be a donor for so many organ transplants before things go catastrophically wrong...

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?

Self serving? Yes, I often serve myself food and drink I have created, but then, I must give the butler some time off, or so I am told, at least.

Self serving? Yes, I often serve myself food and drink I have created, but then, I must give the butler some time off, or so I am told, at least.

I hope there's a bit of sarcasm or humour in that statement. :p

Young children exhibit "innately altruistic" tendencies. If you drop something, they will pick it up for you, if you signify you are in pain, they will tend to investigate, etc. Human are a pack or herd animal (depending whether our "group" is on the offense or the defense) and, as such, as we've certain programmed tendencies that are functionally designed to maintain this method of organization.

Children also demonstrate an inherently selfish behavior. Ever see what happens when there are two toddlers and one bright toy? And whole some schoolchildern bully others to vent their own problems, others bully just because they can.

After a series of revelations, or reality-checks, rather, I have come to the conclusion that I am a very naive and sheltered person.

For as long as I remembered, I have believed that humans are born good, and will act in altruistic manners to help others, and crimes are only the product of unfortunate social conditions. But a few minutes ago, I have realised that being altruistic when others are not will only bring disappointment. People are genetically programmed to put themselves before others, despite all the optimistic rhetoric being spewed by society.

Thoughts? Comments? Care to share your views on human nature?

It would depend on their culture, their genetics and their experiences.
So some people are naturally altruistic, others naturally selfish.
For example some cultures promote violence e.g. killing a lion or some other predator to prove ability. While other cultures might promote being equal to all e.g. Tibeten Buddhists are more likely to share things than people from another country.
Again it's not just culture, your genetic makeup also has large implications for who you are. Your experiences are probably the largest factor in your decision making, so if someone has met nice people all their life it's likely they will also be nice, if someone where tortured or treated cruelly for much of their lives it's more likely they would become a bitter or withdrawn type of person.

I find it's a good idea to be nice to others while able to serve your own needs.
A short answer would be "It's complicated".

Probably.

I think humans are selfserving. If helping others makes someone feel good they will want to feel that way again and will keep helping people. It pleases them to know they are pleasing others.

"Selfishness" is the road to heaven. There is no greater pleasure than being joyful and the way to achieve that is by doing for others, by trying to minimize suffering, by trying to bring happiness to all creatures. If we know the truth of what "self" is - you are me and I am you and we are all one - doing for "others" is the same as doing for oneself. This is what lies at the heart of the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".