Moral Cowards!

[Ryika]

It's one thing to discuss whether specific behaviors are part of human nature, but to deny the very idea of human nature is just... delusional.

 

[inthesomeday]

It's one thing to discuss whether specific behaviors are part of human nature, but to deny the very idea of human nature is just... delusional.

Human nature is a naive and self-important construction. Look at the right studies or patterns and you can call just about anything "human nature".

Humans do stuff because they're biomatter, like reproduce and eat food. But that's not "human" nature anymore than it's "dolphin" nature.

Humans in certain cultures or social structures do stuff because of the societies they live in, but that's not human "nature" anymore than it's a random development of their conditions.

And even these things can be fought. People go on hunger strikes and take vows of celibacy. People can live in different structures than those of agriculture (and did for hundreds of thousands of years).

The state is unnatural, unless you call it human nature literally because it happened, in which case everything is human nature, including Communism and Zoroastrian chants.

 

[Senethro]

I still don't get what this tribal behaviour thing is about anyway. Tribal behaviour exists (for whatever reason) therefore..... what? It is desirable? Excusable? "Natural"?

 

[Ryika]

Human nature is a naive and self-important construction. Look at the right studies or patterns and you can call just about anything "human nature".

Humans do stuff because they're biomatter, like reproduce and eat food. But that's not "human" nature anymore than it's "dolphin" nature.

Humans in certain cultures or social structures do stuff because of the societies they live in, but that's not human "nature" anymore than it's a random development of their conditions.

And even these things can be fought. People go on hunger strikes and take vows of celibacy. People can live in different structures than those of agriculture (and did for hundreds of thousands of years).

The state is unnatural, unless you call it human nature literally because it happened, in which case everything is human nature, including Communism and Zoroastrian chants.

I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion that anybody is arguing that "The state is human nature". Nobody has made such a point, and I would disagree with anyone who were to claim that, because clearly, states are a development that happened as a result to us leaving our "natural habitat" and settling down into ever-growing settlements, that then grew into cities, and later states, the latter often by force. States are a RESULT of human nature in a specific environment, not themselves human nature. In other environments, states may not form.

There is a very robust and easy argument to make about tribalism being part of human nature though: Humans are a species of hunters and gatherers who relied on tribes to survive. Lone wolves, and people who could not, at least on the surface, play by the rules, had a harder time surviving and reproducing than humans who were prone to being part of the team. Therefor, over time, genes that increase our likelihood to work successfully as the a of a tribe, have prospered, hence it became human nature to be tribal on some level. Very easy, really.

What human nature does not mean is that this is just how it is and that we cannot do anything against it. A person can go very much against human nature, and many do - in fact, many biologists argue that there are different "evolutionary programs" built into our genes, and that, if the situation calls for it, human behavior can change drastically, which makes sense, as being able to adapt is a boon in itself. All it means is that, in the greater picture, statistically we will see certain patterns manifest in populations.

 

[Akka]

That doesn't prove anything about the equally imaginary "human nature" though.

"Human nature" = reality is some comedy gold man

Thanks for proving my point. More denial, mate, more denial.

 

[inthesomeday]

I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion that anybody is arguing that "The state is human nature". Nobody has made such a point, and I would disagree with anyone who were to claim that, because clearly, states are a development that happened as a result to us leaving our "natural habitat" and settling down into ever-growing settlements, that then grew into cities, and later states, the latter often by force.

Always by force, but other than that I agree.

States are a RESULT of human nature in a specific environment, not themselves human nature. In other environments, states may not form.

Then what do you call human nature? How did it cause the state? Is it literally because it exists? As I said, this means anything can be called human nature. Pop music or Sharia law. Or, sorry-- a result of human nature. All conditional developments of "human nature", meaning apparently literally anything human does. No difference, only a further abstraction of an already imaginary construct.

There is a very robust and easy argument to make about tribalism being part of human nature though: Humans are a species of hunters and gatherers who relied on tribes to survive.

They are not! Some humans live in hunter-gatherer configurations, but most don't. As it happens, this too seems to be a product of material conditions, because humans often organize themselves into this structure when in a certain set of conditions. So where's the human nature? And what does this term mean?

Lone wolves, and people who could not, at least on the surface, play by the rules, had a harder time surviving and reproducing than humans who were prone to being part of the team. Therefor, over time, genes that increase our likelihood to work successfully as the a of a tribe, have prospered, hence it became human nature to be tribal on some level. Very easy, really.

That's not true to how these developments occurred at all. Tendency towards cooperation is not biological but sociological. Modern humans live in societies that have developed a broad variety of cultural tendencies towards cooperation, and this variance has absolutely nothing to do with biology, because most humans are biologically pretty much the same today as they were 200,000 years ago, with the exception of slight differences in melanin or other superficial physical characteristics.

Cooperation is no more "natural" than rationalism. I may be willing to agree cooperation is a development, like a tactic, of the natural tendency to self-preservation, but this is common to every biological organism in the universe, and therefore is less "human" nature than nature, which we all agree does exist.

What human nature does not mean is that this is just how it is and that we cannot do anything against it. A person can go very much against human nature, and many do - in fact, many biologists argue that there are different "evolutionary programs" built into our genes, and that, if the situation calls for it, human behavior can change drastically, which makes sense, as being able to adapt is a boon in itself. All it means is that, in the greater picture, statistically we will see certain patterns manifest in populations.

The patterns you discuss, like tribalism, has nothing to do with biology. Human nature is usually used to ascribe sociological tendencies like greed or, above, cooperation, to biology, which is absolutely ridiculous. Most of humanity's common biological features are shared with many other species (some with all) and has little impact in the vast social constructs of today, like gender, race, or tribalism.

This is my point of contention with the term "human nature". It's utter nonsense. If you're using it to describe the tendency to eat and to reproduce, and to survive for these things, and to work for the reduction of effort to these things, which are natural, they are not human, and rarely have any bearing on discussions where "human nature" comes up. A "development of human nature" can literally be anything in the right conditions, because that's just how things work, cause effect relationships are the basis of existence. It's useless to talk about human nature and human nature essentially doesn't exist.

Thanks for proving my point. More denial, mate, more denial.

This is like a Christian saying an atheist is denying God because they ran out of other arguments

 

[Berzerker]

if the creation of states isn't human nature, why are there so many states?

 

[Akka]

This is like a Christian saying an atheist is denying God because they ran out of other arguments

More like :
"when the wise point at the moon, the fool look at the finger"
"what's so special about your finger ?"
"my point"
"ah ! You ran out of argument, I won !"

 

[Ryika]

It's ironic of course that inthesomeday brings up a Christian who's running out of arguments, when he's the one declaring that the foundations of evolutionary biology are incorrect, and replaces it with his pseudo-religious "It's all culture!"-mantra which is backed by no evidence at all... the level of science-denial he displays in favor of entirely unfounded theories that need to be true in order for his world view to work, is staggering.

You are doing exactly what that Christian does.

 

[inthesomeday]

More like :
"when the wise point at the moon, the fool look at the finger"
"what's so special about your finger ?"
"my point"
"ah ! You ran out of argument, I won !"

What?

It's ironic of course that inthesomeday brings up a Christian who's running out of arguments, when he's the one declaring that the foundations of evolutionary biology are incorrect, and replaces it with his pseudo-religious "It's all culture!"-mantra which is backed by no evidence at all... the level of science-denial he displays in favor of entirely unfounded theories that need to be true in order for his world view to work, is staggering.

You are doing exactly what that Christian does.

Valessa, I think that instead this stems again from your misunderstanding of the way certain sciences work, including evolutionary biology and statistics. The foundations of evolutionary biology don't have jack **** to do with tribalism or the human nature fallacy. Evolutionary biology concerns itself with traits developed over a really really long time-- way more than a few hundred thousand years-- and in humans, which breed somewhat randomly, behavioral changes like the ones you talk about are utterly unrelated to biology. A tendency towards cooperation does not come from genetics, which is the type of evolutionary biology you're talking about, and human behavioral biology has been fairly stagnant in the last 50,000 years-- called "behavioral normalcy". Tribalism is as unnatural as advertisements and textbooks, it's a complete invention of societies in given conditions.

Honestly, the human nature fallacy is above all lazy and dishonest. What you really mean is that the conditions in which certain cultural traditions develop are "natural", and it comes from a political agenda of wanting those conditions not to change. Tribalism and the state are so obviously developments of material conditions, and to claim they're hard wired in some way to human behavior is moreso motivated by the desire to perpetuate them than any sort of scientific basis.

 

[Ryika]

Evolutionary biology concerns itself with traits developed over a really really long time-- way more than a few hundred thousand years-- and in humans, which breed somewhat randomly

Actually, evolutionary biology concerns itself with any timeframe, but what you're probably trying to say is that the changes that evolutionary biology cares about takes hundred thousand years in humans to change which... well, is still incorrect. Changes can actually occur rather quickly if the circumstances

behavioral changes like the ones you talk about are utterly unrelated to biology.

This is just an idiotic claim. On a societal level, ALL behavior is fundamentally based on biology, even if it is dictated by culture, as culture itself is a product of biology, as it is created by people, who are beings that are shaped by the environment. Even if most of the environmental triggers are now cultural in nature, the current framework is not where our behaviors originated - they originated in a much more feral environment, where culture was less of an issue, and survival was much more of an issue.

A tendency towards cooperation does not come from genetics, which is the type of evolutionary biology you're talking about

Yes it does. I already explained it to you, too. In an environment where cooperation is needed, those who are able to cooperate, survive. Those who don't, don't, it's the environment that has shaped the behavior. This tendency was likely developed long before we even had anything that could even be called "culture", humans already had to work together before we even started making use of fire and advanced tools, so while today cultural impulses are certainly a large part of the environment, the genetic predisposition did not come from culture. They were there before.

Which makes this here really ironic:

and human behavioral biology has been fairly stagnant in the last 50,000 years-- called "behavioral normalcy".

Because I'm not sure how that works in your head, but stagnancy is evidence of biological elements, not evidence against it.

We can, as so often, actually see the origins of this in apes. Apes do not have culture, and live in a reasonably similar situation as humans lived before they started to use fire. I'm not sure if there are ANY species of apes that are not tribal, but certainly all of the thriving ape species are tribal, and often wage war against neighboring tribes. So again... how does that work in your head?

It doesn't, right? You're just ignoring reality to continue to follow your delusions.

Tribalism is as unnatural as advertisements and textbooks, it's a complete invention of societies in given conditions.

There you go being a religious zealot again.

Here's a great collection of voices (mostly) from different fields of biology who have something to say human nature:
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/9030/9030.pdf
Note how they all disagree on the details, and yet paint a beautiful, overall picture of the origins of our behavior.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Many many animals are hard-wired to form groups. Group-Formation, Group-Maintenance Group-Organization on a strategically as well as tactical level are all utmost natural phenomena. Yet in humans, they are not? Because it gets no more primitive than a tribe for us. This is something we always do no matter the conditions. Like a bird who will build a nest.

 

[Berzerker]

monkees form clans and tribes, why wouldn't we?

 

[Senethro]

Monkeys and humans form groups, therefore Throw Out Refugees?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No. Therefore stop questioning the principle legitimacy of varying levels of solidarity. This is what we have been discussing. Not refugees.

 

[Ryika]

I personally don't even agree with that. I think we should very much question the legitimacy of varying levels of solidarity, it's a concept that has no benefits for our societies. Just because it exists, just because it is natural, does not mean it's something that we should accept as a permanent state of things, or that it's "good".

But human nature clearly exists, and must be taken into account if we want to understand how and why things happen. inthesomeday's religious crusade is in the way of a better understanding of humans, and as such in the way of actual progress.

 

[Berzerker]

Monkeys and humans form groups, therefore Throw Out Refugees?

Thats a possibility, I'm sure monkees consider relevant factors before accepting or driving away outsiders... But the fact our close relatives do the same thing does show the tribe or clan is rooted deep into our psyche. If its simian nature, then why be surprised if its human nature?

 

[inthesomeday]

Actually, evolutionary biology concerns itself with any timeframe, but what you're probably trying to say is that the changes that evolutionary biology cares about takes hundred thousand years in humans to change which... well, is still incorrect. Changes can actually occur rather quickly if the circumstances

Not in the way you're talking about.

This is just an idiotic claim. On a societal level, ALL behavior is fundamentally based on biology, even if it is dictated by culture, as culture itself is a product of biology, as it is created by people, who are beings that are shaped by the environment. Even if most of the environmental triggers are now cultural in nature, the current framework is not where our behaviors originated - they originated in a much more feral environment, where culture was less of an issue, and survival was much more of an issue.

If we're doing this then it really all boils down to the laws of physics, which dictate everything. Culture is a product of biology in the same way biology is a product of chemistry and electrical physics, in the same way those are a product of astrophysics. This is actually not a bad way of thinking, it's true that each process exists as a product of the one above it, but your thinking is flawed when you then try to derive some commentary on uniformity based on what you observe within the conditions that exist.

The state, and tribalism, are the states of being of human culture today. This does not mean they are natural or inevitable to the biological function of humans, just the same as the traditional structure of the cell is not an inevitable or "natural"-- here used to mean a fundamental part of the process itself, the same as "human nature"-- development of biology. It exists only because of the conditions outside of it.

Again, you are not listening. I agree humans adhere to biology as much as every other creature-- in fact, this is where we seem to disagree. You are putting forward that humanity will always act how it does today because the conditions that have led to it in its current form have shown patterns. You call those patterns "human nature", which you absolutely are not using to mean "a product of nature" but rather "fundamental and inevitable to the (human) construct itself". I am saying this human nature, as you use the term, does not exist, because the patterns you ascribe to it only occur as a result of various environmental conditions (tribalism from material conditions), and that in different environmental conditions the only commonalities would be those expected of the most basic biological organism, the commonalities that define life. If you want to call those human nature, for whatever reason, instead of just nature, or biological definitions, then go right ahead, but when you continue to try and apply them to sociology in some way I will continue to refute you.

Yes it does. I already explained it to you, too. In an environment where cooperation is needed, those who are able to cooperate, survive. Those who don't, don't, it's the environment that has shaped the behavior. This tendency was likely developed long before we even had anything that could even be called "culture", humans already had to work together before we even started making use of fire and advanced tools, so while today cultural impulses are certainly a large part of the environment, the genetic predisposition did not come from culture. They were there before.

Cooperation is simply a valuable tactic for survival, enforced in most cultures. People compete just as commonly. That's how capitalism works, see?

It's neither random nor natural, it's conditional. That's been the whole point all along. I agree that the choice to cooperate has probably led a lot of people historically to survive while others did not, but that choice wasn't driven by biology.

Which makes this here really ironic:


Because I'm not sure how that works in your head, but stagnancy is evidence of biological elements, not evidence against it.

I haven't done lots of research on it but from what I have learned there were no tribalistic tendencies of the modern human behavioral type, at least not as we discuss them. There was the protection of the family (the offspring) as a given, but of course this is a biological definition of life and shouldn't be called human nature. On top of that, we've seen greed, the state, and other things erroneously called natural develop since then when they didn't before. Behavioral normalcy does not contain these things we contest as natural to humans as a mandate of biology, therefore, but rather as a product of environmental (mostly material) conditions.

We can, as so often, actually see the origins of this in apes. Apes do not have culture, and live in a reasonably similar situation as humans lived before they started to use fire. I'm not sure if there are ANY species of apes that are not tribal, but certainly all of the thriving ape species are tribal, and often wage war against neighboring tribes. So again... how does that work in your head?

How do you define culture again? Or tribe, for that matter, since most apes exist mostly in family groups rather than more complex societies than that?

It doesn't, right? You're just ignoring reality to continue to follow your delusions.

Yes I am you're right haha how'd you get me

There you go being a religious zealot again.

What do you think the word religion means?

Here's a great collection of voices (mostly) from different fields of biology who have something to say human nature:
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/9030/9030.pdf
Note how they all disagree on the details, and yet paint a beautiful, overall picture of the origins of our behavior.

I read the first two, they were interesting. They were written to answer the question "does evolution explain human nature?", however, which naturally means they are all written in the assumption that human nature exists. On top of that, the fact they can't even come up with one human nature to discuss goes to show that there probably isn't one, because each of them studied different things and had different ways of studying it. Again, as I said before, looking at the right studies or what have you, you can usually attribute whatever behavior you want to to "human nature". I'm sure if you googled it you could find some saying that the instinct of humans was to be accepting based on X observation, or that the instinct of humans was to focus only on the self based on X observation, both of which would contradict the idea that the instinct of humans was to accept some as most like the self and exclude the rest based on some feature, or tribalism. That's the problem with human nature. It can be whatever you want it to be, and is usually contradictory, because versatility is really the most advantageous trait an organism can have.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Human nature is a naive and self-important construction. Look at the right studies or patterns and you can call just about anything "human nature".

Humans do stuff because they're biomatter, like reproduce and eat food. But that's not "human" nature anymore than it's "dolphin" nature.

Humans in certain cultures or social structures do stuff because of the societies they live in, but that's not human "nature" anymore than it's a random development of their conditions.

And even these things can be fought. People go on hunger strikes and take vows of celibacy. People can live in different structures than those of agriculture (and did for hundreds of thousands of years).

The state is unnatural, unless you call it human nature literally because it happened, in which case everything is human nature, including Communism and Zoroastrian chants.

There is some utility in categorization of actions consistent with human behavior on average vs other actions. That's all human nature is though, an observed pattern, not a causal force. This is also how we would constrain what is vs is not human nature; observed patterns of what humans actually do on average.

So one could reasonably say "we have observed this pattern from humanity consistently and have no reason to anticipate that people, on average, will act differently given the same situation the future" and boil that down to "it is human nature to do x in y situation". There are, after all, actions that humans will typically do under some circumstances that say dolphins or trees will not do under the same circumstances.

That makes it wrong to say "people do that because it's human nature", but not necessarily wrong to say "human nature allows us to anticipate X reaction given Y stimulus". If we know X and Y, it's not a bad thing to consider when making policy choices.

Tribal behaviors given some circumstances are consistent with observed reality. People do act that way sometimes, and not factoring that expectation when it is likely to occur is a recipe for failure.

Tribalism and the state are so obviously developments of material conditions, and to claim they're hard wired in some way to human behavior is moreso motivated by the desire to perpetuate them than any sort of scientific basis.

That's...a pretty strong claim. "In some way" is vague. Even non-human species have a strong evolutionary selection towards self-interest, and in the presence of scarcity working in groups that exclude others of own species (you get this to varying degrees for varying reasons in animals ranging from lions/chimps/dolphins all the way to stuff like ants/termites). It is not unreasonable to say that states attempt to manipulate reactions in such a way as to evoke the same tendencies that other animals use to group together for survival, among other tools states use to manipulate reactions.

Even if you prefer to boil down anticipated action A to B neuron in said human firing, you still need to factor anticipated consequences at some point.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I personally don't even agree with that. I think we should very much question the legitimacy of varying levels of solidarity, it's a concept that has no benefits for our societies. Just because it exists, just because it is natural, does not mean it's something that we should accept as a permanent state of things, or that it's "good".

Obviously, you can always question a more or less specific variance. But there not only always will be variance, state-level variance is also a very vital thing in the way the world is organized now and while you may be unhappy with that or the way that is done, it is pretty naive to argue against it as a whole in the sprite of completely abandoning it, of not giving it any credence.
But is just the spirit of such good-vs-evil discussions. To act like you were to break something holy, when in fact, it is not or ever was remotely holy on this world or in the daily dealings of its citizens.