# On Human Nature



## WillFightForBeer (Mar 15, 2004)

I'm testing this theory, and to be honest, this is the first time that I've actually mentioned it in public. My theory is that all humans are egocentric in nature. First and foremost, _everyone_ cares about themself above all others. Charity and such are conducted for one of two reasons:

1) Hope of credit for a positive afterlife
2) Because the feeling that one gets from it is good

After ourselves, we care about those that benefit our existence, and we will do whatever it takes to protect them, i.e parents, siblings, etc. 

We may ignore these notions, but they are what they are. Human nature is just a highly evolved way of caring about yourself and not giving half a **** about anyone else, behind the facades that is.



There, I presented it. There is no motive for this theory, I do not come from a "broken home", I am 14 years old and in great mental health, etc. 

All biases aside, what is your opinion on the subject?


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 15, 2004)

I think self-preservation is true.  Instinctually your first reaction is to save yourself.  It had to be that way, or you would have been eaten.

Now, that said, I don't believe egocentrism is true for everyone.  If it were, we would have no Firefighters or EMT's (we'd still have some police, since there are some just out for a power trip).  Their job is 100% to help people in trouble, many times putting their own lives in jepoardy.  I know quite a few of both (I work in a hospital), and they are some of the most down to earth people I've ever met.  Most have families as well.

It almost sounds communistic to say, but I think most people would work for the greater good if given the chance.  Unfortunately, there will always be greed and power to lust after, so a utopian ideaology like that will never exist.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 15, 2004)

Hey WillFightForBeer

You're not the first one to think of this--check out Existentialism among other subjects if you'd like to expand or more carefully define your theory. Andre Gide wrote a book called "The Immoralist" that might be of particular interest. 

In response to the theory itself, personally I'd say get married and have kids before deciding it's an axiom. I'd happily lay down my life to defend theirs. I also think some people are just more altruistic than others, and not all of them do these nice things to satisfy urges or for recognition.

I'd also have to say that the teenage years are THE most egocentric years. People generally become less self-involved, more caring and just plain nicer (in my experience) as they age. Just wait til your tenth high school reunion, you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Andi (Mar 15, 2004)

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is very interesting if you're looking into this subject. It presents some fairly convincing arguments about the relationship between our biology and altruism. It's written well so the technical jargon isn't too hard to digest. Being scientific in outlook, it might not help you too much with your first suggested motive, however.

Bear in mind that it was published in the seventies (early eighties?) so some of the theories will surely have moved on since then. Also, i don't accept every conclusion he reaches, as he's clearly putting his own philosophical slant on his research to some degree, but it's an excellent book either way.

Does anybody know of any more recent work (that's accessible to non-biologists!) that expands on this?


----------



## Ender (Mar 15, 2004)

WillFightForBeer said:
			
		

> I'm testing this theory, and to be honest, this is the first time that I've actually mentioned it in public. My theory is that all humans are egocentric in nature. First and foremost, _everyone_ cares about themself above all others. Charity and such are conducted for one of two reasons:
> 
> 1) Hope of credit for a positive afterlife
> 2) Because the feeling that one gets from it is good
> ...



Actually that theory has already been proported. I remember discussing that in an Ethics class. But as one poster already said, if you lay your life down for somebody else, what good feeling are you going to get?..you're dead....shrug


----------



## Eldritch Knight (Mar 15, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I think self-preservation is true.  Instinctually your first reaction is to save yourself.  It had to be that way, or you would have been eaten.
> 
> Now, that said, I don't believe egocentrism is true for everyone.  If it were, we would have no Firefighters or EMT's (we'd still have some police, since there are some just out for a power trip).  Their job is 100% to help people in trouble, many times putting their own lives in jepoardy.  I know quite a few of both (I work in a hospital), and they are some of the most down to earth people I've ever met.  Most have families as well.
> 
> It almost sounds communistic to say, but I think most people would work for the greater good if given the chance.  Unfortunately, there will always be greed and power to lust after, so a utopian ideaology like that will never exist.




I'd like to propose the possibility that we can override our selfish nature by means of education and dedication. We have had saints in our past, and truly martyrs didn't die out of selfishness. Suicide bombers don't kill themselves for the rush - they do it out of belief for a higher cause that's been instilled in them with enough volition to override their instinct for self-preservation.


----------



## someguy (Mar 16, 2004)

THis is one of those theories I have heard similar stuff to and it may well be true for some people.  I'm not sure it is for all people though.
As for being in mental good mental heath... Well now you should know you aren't going to be a good philosopher. I'm kidding of course but so many of the great phillosophers were at least a little bit crazy.  Thats another subject for another time though.  
As to PSi_Radars comment I have met lots of grumpy old people and lots of nice teenagers but I suppose there is a fair amount of trueth to what you have said.
To support what WillFightForBeer said though alot of martyrs did for a religious cause though so that falls under getting in better in the after life.
Maybe all humans are selfish maybe only some but I guess this asks the question is it intention or result that matters?  I'm not sure but that probably should be a whole new topic though. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=212674#post212674
That'll keep it from having this thread split to much.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 16, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> THis is one of those theories I have heard similar stuff to and it may well be true for some people.  I'm not sure it is for all people though.
> As for being in mental good mental heath... Well now you should know you aren't going to be a good philosopher. I'm kidding of course but so many of the great phillosophers were at least a little bit crazy.  Thats another subject for another time though.
> As to PSi_Radars comment I have met lots of grumpy old people and lots of nice teenagers but I suppose there is a fair amount of trueth to what you have said.
> To support what WillFightForBeer said though alot of martyrs did for a religious cause though so that falls under getting in better in the after life.
> ...


I disagree with your whole theory. People will do what they think is right. Nobody believes themselves to be evil, but evil comes from placing your wants above the greater need. People don't stay in unhappy marriages because they are selfish, they do it because they believe it is the right thing to do. They were taught right from wrong at childhood and will do so in adulthood. Lots of people would gladly lay down there life in defense of there family or freinds that don't even believe there is an afterlife.
Sean


----------



## someguy (Mar 16, 2004)

Touch'O'Death I dissagree with WillFightForBeer but I must also disagree with you that people will always do what they think is right.  Sometimes people do stuff they know is wrong but they do it anyways.  Sometimes they feel guilt about it and try to repent for it.  For example the My Lai massacre which happened well todays the aniversary of it come to think of it.  The soldiers who killed the people of that village knew it was wrong but did it anyway.  War brings many atrocities and give alot of insight into the crappier part of the human mind.  There are plenty of examples of people doing wwhat hey know is wrong yet doing it anyway in war.  
I do agree that there are people out there who are very unselfish.  There aree also times when some people are selfish.   Children often times are selfish untill they learn to not be.  Not allways though I suppose.  
Of course I have been wrong before and will be wrong again about manythings so if you can disprove it feel free.  And there are always exeptions to rules so maybe the example I gave is just an exeption to it I dunno.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 16, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Touch'O'Death I dissagree with WillFightForBeer but I must also disagree with you that people will always do what they think is right.  Sometimes people do stuff they know is wrong but they do it anyways.  Sometimes they feel guilt about it and try to repent for it.  For example the My Lai massacre which happened well todays the aniversary of it come to think of it.  The soldiers who killed the people of that village knew it was wrong but did it anyway.  War brings many atrocities and give alot of insight into the crappier part of the human mind.  There are plenty of examples of people doing wwhat hey know is wrong yet doing it anyway in war.
> I do agree that there are people out there who are very unselfish.  There aree also times when some people are selfish.   Children often times are selfish untill they learn to not be.  Not allways though I suppose.
> Of course I have been wrong before and will be wrong again about manythings so if you can disprove it feel free.  And there are always exeptions to rules so maybe the example I gave is just an exeption to it I dunno.


Wrong wrong wrong! Just kidding. The people who perpetrated that massacre were following orders. The Japaneses believed there leader to be a living god. Even to mumble a few words of doubt could get you executed in front of all the men. I'm sure if you asked each individual before they massacred entire villages wheather or not they wanted to kill everyone, your answer would be, "I'll do what the emporer commands!". Those people were never given the opportunity to express personal wants and desires. My point is that right and wrong can be easily discerned objectivly, but when you are in the thick of it, there are a lot of different rights and wrongs to choose from. Do you think Adolph Hittler thought of himself as Mr. Evil, or do you think he thought he was doing the right thing for the German people?
Sean


----------



## someguy (Mar 16, 2004)

I may be confused on things here the way my minds working today(saying my mind isn't working well doesn't help me in a debate much now does it) but MY Lai was in veit nam where American soldiers killed a whole village then covered it up so the would not have to suffer the consequences of it.  Well their supperior officers wouldn't suffer through the consequences.  Women and children where killed.  Horrible stuff.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 16, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> I may be confused on things here the way my minds working today(saying my mind isn't working well doesn't help me in a debate much now does it) but MY Lai was in veit nam where American soldiers killed a whole village then covered it up so the would not have to suffer the consequences of it.  Well their supperior officers wouldn't suffer through the consequences.  Women and children where killed.  Horrible stuff.


I was aware you might have been talking about vietnam. I chose Japanese massacres to illistrate my point. But to address your issue (of which I know little about) I believe the whole massacre can be picked apart and shown that the massacre was not a selfish act by any one induividual, but a bunch of justifications gone wrong. We were in the habbit of sending messages with our actions (you might call it terrorism or you might call it counter terroism).
A soldier shoots at the people he is ordered to shoot at. That is his job. The superior officers decide whom they shoot at. Imagine how many women and children were killed every time a B-52 dropped a bomb. Is the pilot guilty of a massacre? the only difference between a group of soldiers and a guy dropping a bomb from miles above is location. You could just as easily claim the american public guilty as to blame a couple of soldiers following their orders. After all they supported the "Police Action" in the first place. We pat ourselves on the back for making the world safe for democracy, and all they wanted was to get rid of the French. And who doesn't want to get rid of the French?


----------



## WillFightForBeer (Mar 16, 2004)

Everything, including staying in a bad marriage, can be explained by the Will to Power. We want recognition and we need to be praised, and something such as a divorce can go against the beliefs of a religion, or it may simply look bad in the eyes of the people judging. Humans simply want power.


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 16, 2004)

Using that mentality, I could argue you started this thread just to show your dominance over the rest of us by being the first to post, not because you were honestly looking for an opinion.  /shrug  (not trying to flame, just proving a point).

One thing I've learned about life is it's alot like politics.  No matter what you do, there's 50 ways to explain it, and 100 ways to make it look bad for you.

I personally try to follow one simple little rhyme:
"Eight words this rede fulfill, an it harm none, do as ye will..."

I don't consider myself out for power.  I'm out to live my life as well as I can.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 16, 2004)

WillFightForBeer said:
			
		

> Everything, including staying in a bad marriage, can be explained by the Will to Power. We want recognition and we need to be praised, and something such as a divorce can go against the beliefs of a religion, or it may simply look bad in the eyes of the people judging. Humans simply want power.


Try convincing the women/men who stay in abusive relationships that their reason for staying is a power trip. Their abusive partners may well be power-hungry and domineering, but the ones who get abused aren't there for the power. The reasons they stay aren't necessarily because of their religion or the judgment of others.

- Ceicei


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 16, 2004)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Try convincing the women/men who stay in abusive relationships that their reason for staying is a power trip. Their abusive partners may well be power-hungry and domineering, but the ones who get abused aren't there for the power. The reasons they stay aren't necessarily because of their religion or the judgment of others.
> 
> - Ceicei


They stay for fear of their life.

They stay because they were brain washed to have no self esteem et al.

They . . ., 

Yet I cannot think of one person staying for power, if it is really that bad. If the two have come to an argreement, then that is different and between them.
:asian:


----------



## someguy (Mar 17, 2004)

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/mylai.htm this is about My lai it wasn't all of that pretty of a thing though.  I'm not sure as to the exact acuracy of all of it and some is missing but this sort of thing proves sometimes people don't do what they think is morally right.
opps had to edit it to remove an s from as and it wasn't sas.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 21, 2004)

I think I understand what you are saying, Rich, but there is another factor that is not being talked about here. 

The original question was about people in general and I must concur that people are basically selfish in deference to their own survival. This doesn't make them bad or awful. People will do some pretty ugly things to stay alive or survive terrible conditions. The wonderful thing is that people also have the ability to transcend their human nature and come out of the best parts of themselves when they choose too. But that is a choice, not a natural part of their nature. 

As I said when I started I think there is another thing being over-looked here. Supposing for a inute that we are "hard-wired" to think of ourselves first. And supposing for a minute that we are capable of making that choice. One thing that is being forgotten is the kind of acculturation ("scripting") that a person gets which can either work for or against the situation. What makes me think of this are the number of abuse cases I have worked with. Often times its not a matter of low self-esteem, but rather the inbred belief (usually from a childhood living in a house of similar dynamics) which disposes a person towards thinking this is the way things are suppose to be. And when things are NOT that way the person feels "abnormal".  I know it sounds strange but sometimes taking a person out of an abusive situation causes them to actually feel "strange" like something is suddenly not right and they have to get back to that abusive situation to feel normal. This same thing can happen if you start dealing with people who have been raised since childhood to only think of themselves, feel negative about certain people or situations, or subscribe to very narrow or parochial definitions of social responsibility. All of these will cause a person to tend to follow his basic instincts toward survival and not to act in some novel fashion for the greater good of someone else.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 21, 2004)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> I think I understand what you are saying, Rich, but there is another factor that is not being talked about here.
> 
> The original question was about people in general and I must concur that people are basically selfish in deference to their own survival. This doesn't make them bad or awful. People will do some pretty ugly things to stay alive or survive terrible conditions. The wonderful thing is that people also have the ability to transcend their human nature and come out of the best parts of themselves when they choose too. But that is a choice, not a natural part of their nature.
> 
> ...


Bruce,

I am confused with you stating that it is no low self esteem, yet it is inbred condidtioning from thier life they were raised from. Maybe it is my definition, yet I think the source of the low self esteem could be the way they were raised. I agree with that. Yet it is a low self esteem of themselves compared to a "Normal" healthy human.

As to subsribing to "very narrow or parochial definitions of social responsibility" I agree that socialization does deal with it, If you are a young Greek woman or HIspanic women and travel abroad, the people of their culture will insult them and tell them they are "Easy" and imply they are having sex at a real young age, even if they are not. Why because these cultures believe that all American women as easy. 

Some of the American Indians had socialization as well. If a child was born with a deformity that would cause the tribe a hardship, it fell to the oldest male child, not gone through the rights of manhood, who was not in the immediate family, to steal the child and kill it, either through strangulation or drowning or , ..., . The Child could not be punished if caught, and it was for the best of the society that the resources not be wasted on a non functioning unit of said society. Now given today's technology and our societies capabilities we are able to not only keep them alive, many become productive members of society.

So cultures will circumcize the males at an age. Others do it at birth, some culture circumcize women. There are many arguements about this. And when you make statements about one culture it amy not fit for another. And with that I agree.

Yet, in a standard normal North American (* Differences between USA and Canada are there yet, not that great *) family, I do still do not see the POWER of someone staying in a bad relationship.

Now as to selfishness, I agree that people do think of themselves. Although many people think about raising families and procreating. I know women who wanted this and were not in a relationship at the time. They had no way to express it other than to say they had a desire to raise children. Could this nto be a part of their natural make up for the continuation of the species. And hance not all about themselves?

You also mention choice and that removes us from the natural environment. I disagree. It is natural for a human to make choices. If not then onlt the strongest male would reproduce as he would be the alpha male with the power to control others, adn he would spread his genes around and prevent others from doing so by threat of violence or through violence. People would kill others just for the insults and road rage and the loss of a promotion or what have you. I contend that maybe 10,000 years ago choice might not have been a part of the natural way, yet today I contend that it is a part of the natutral human being. I would even argue that people made choices on how to survive 10,000 years ago given their conditions and situations. Yet, I will allow for the counter arguement that it is no where near as it is today. And had a reduced roll.

Best Regards
:asian:


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 21, 2004)

Dear Rich: 

I don't know if this will help, but when I used to do modules for vets as part of the In-patient Treatment program a few of those modules dealt with helping those vets get some insight into how abusive relationships work. The way I would relate it was to liken a human being to a compass. To work well and get where they are going in life, parents help calibrate their lil' "compasses". Unfortunately some parents are not qualified for this task so that the child/compass thinks they are calibrated towards true "N" ("normal") and runs their lives accordingly. Problem is that EVERYONE ELSE has different calibration and the majority usually set the general belief about what "normal". Now, if enough people tell that mis-calibrated person that they are going the wrong way there are a couple of things that can happen. One is that the person can withdraw into their life because change is too scarey and shun other people. The other thing is that person can go to a special person/program/institution (therapy) and go through a process of recalibrating so that their idea of whats "normal" will change and they will move in a different direction in their life hopefully to come out in a better place. The idea of "self-esteem" is actually a matter of how much confidence one has in relying on whatever compass settings they have. Its been found out recently that bullies who everyone THOUGHT had poor self-esteem actually have very good self-esteem. Apparently this comes from all the reinforcment they get from their society for beating on people generally considered to be of aberrent or alternative lifestyles. As far as the abusive relationship example, a woman might think she is particularly virtuous letting her alcoholic husband, beat, abuse and violate her at will counting it as a sign of her dedication and perservence regarding her marriage.  Good self-esteem but bad choices. Guys don't have any better.

You sorta hit a button with me when you mentioned "American women being easy". I have been speaking against the image our culture puts out about females for years now but have begun to wonder if underneath it all we are a bunch of closet pedaphiles. As much as Americans complain that people think our women are sluts, one has to only look at the media out-put to see that sex sells and fantasies no matter how incorrect sell the most. Oh, sure. Everybody is absolutely appalled at the thought of 5 y/o girls being deflowered by drunken uncles but that doesn't keep them from watching a made-for-TV movie about it, or a docu-drama on cable, or buying a porno flick. Give me a break, ya know? 

Finally, I might not have done a good job of explain what I think the role of choice is. 10,000 years ago the Alpha male DID have his choice of the female and to some degree this still holds water. Alpha males in the form of the best athlete, the wealthiest corporate leader, most powerful political figure can have their choice of partners because power is the best aphrodisiac. Oh, sure. A women will select a nurturing male to help her manage her family, but she wants her children sired by a powerful, healthy Alpha, and settles for a nurturer later on when it becomes apparent that her dream of having an intellectual and physical Apollo.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 21, 2004)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Rich:
> 
> I don't know if this will help, but when I used to do modules for vets as part of the In-patient Treatment program a few of those modules dealt with helping those vets get some insight into how abusive relationships work. The way I would relate it was to liken a human being to a compass. To work well and get where they are going in life, parents help calibrate their lil' "compasses". Unfortunately some parents are not qualified for this task so that the child/compass thinks they are calibrated towards true "N" ("normal") and runs their lives accordingly. Problem is that EVERYONE ELSE has different calibration and the majority usually set the general belief about what "normal". Now, if enough people tell that mis-calibrated person that they are going the wrong way there are a couple of things that can happen. One is that the person can withdraw into their life because change is too scarey and shun other people. The other thing is that person can go to a special person/program/institution (therapy) and go through a process of recalibrating so that their idea of whats "normal" will change and they will move in a different direction in their life hopefully to come out in a better place. The idea of "self-esteem" is actually a matter of how much confidence one has in relying on whatever compass settings they have. Its been found out recently that bullies who everyone THOUGHT had poor self-esteem actually have very good self-esteem. Apparently this comes from all the reinforcment they get from their society for beating on people generally considered to be of aberrent or alternative lifestyles. As far as the abusive relationship example, a woman might think she is particularly virtuous letting her alcoholic husband, beat, abuse and violate her at will counting it as a sign of her dedication and perservence regarding her marriage. Good self-esteem but bad choices. Guys don't have any better.
> 
> ...


Bruce,

Thanks for the reply, yet I am still a little confused.

I do not see the relationship or anaolgy between a gang member and an abused spouse?

The gang Member see violences as a way to power.

The abusing spouse see violence as a way of power.

I still do not see how the abused gets the power? And without power I do not see self esteem or confidence?

Still thinking


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 22, 2004)

Dear Rich: 

".....The abusing spouse see violence as a way of power.

I still do not see how the abused gets the power? And without power I do not see self esteem or confidence?....." 

Yes, I know what you mean. When it comes to talking about abusive relationships the role of the perp is always quite a bit more clear than that of the victim. For years the counseling profession always seemed to treat the victim (as such) as a kind of inanimate object that the perp wailed-on. Identifying lines of power and control usually seemed kind of obvious. In about the last 20 years or so, professionals have begun to look at the victim and asked questions about why they were making the choices THEY were making. This has opened up a very intriguing line of research. For instance, the perp was often a product of an abusive household--- and so were the victims. Now one would reasonably ask "why would a person who is raised in an abusive household choose to go into--- and remain--- in an abusive relationship?"  Its not unlike a person who is raised in an alcoholic family. Why would they go out and marry an alcoholic KNOWING the devastation that such a decision might carry--- and CHOOSE to remain in such a relationship. The are apparently dynamics at work here that have been poorly understood and the research associated with has begun to change the manner in which these families are dealt with. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------

