We live in electrically cooled housing, we drink purified water, but humans never really got out of the jungle on a large scale.  There have been isolated exceptions -- Buddha, for example, was reputed to be somewhat civilized -- but inside every supposedly civilized group there is a Hobbesian donnybrook trying to get out.  If anything, the acrimony has gotten nastier since we've started living in cities.

Humans act uncivilized from time to time and the chattering classes wonder whether the internet, or porn, or some other modern consumerist fetish is causing us to revert back to the Hobbesian war of All against All.  It's not a problem outside of us.  It's a problem inside of us.

http://kotaku.com/345969/russian-man-killed-over-lineage-ii-clan-grudge

http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/24/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt

People aren't malicious on the Internet because the pseudo-anonymity makes us nasty.  We're malicious by nature.  We will act aggressively for any excuse.  It's not that games make us killers;  we start out as killers looking for an excuse.  In the first link above, the game furnished an excuse, and the rest was as easy as falling off a cliff.

The typical comment is, "I can't believe this loser was willing to commit murder over a stupid game.  I've never even punched someone because of a game. I'm morally superior and I practice good sportsmanship, win or lose."  The fact is that humans love to act on violent impulses, and humans love to take revenge.  We are evolved to survive in a Neolithic ecosystem where violence and revenge are instrumental to survival.  Transcending those instincts takes a great deal more than a lifetime of gracious sportsmanship, and the fact that one has never committed murder is not proof that one could restrain oneself from some equal atrocity, if given the opportunity.

Quote from: riprockHumans act uncivilized from time to time and the chattering classes wonder whether the internet, or porn, or some other modern consumerist fetish is causing us to revert back to the Hobbesian war of All against All.  It's not a problem outside of us.  It's a problem inside of us.

You are correct that the problem is inside of us but the culture around us will determine how easily and how often the "Hobbesian war of All against All" pops out, which is why crime, violence, and so forth are not consistent across different cultures.  

Oh, wait.  I'm not supposed to notice that.  Political correctness demands that we insist that all cultures are equal, none better than the other.

Quote from: riprockPeople aren't malicious on the Internet because the pseudo-anonymity makes us nasty.  We're malicious by nature.

Correct, but pseudo-anonymity makes it easy to be malicious and nasty and undermines the cultural and social elements that often keep that maliciousness in check face-to-face.

ADDED:  See this article.  The pseudo-anonymity creates the sort of moral distancing that makes most throwing a switch to kill one person to save five people something that most people would consider but not actually pushing one person in front of a train to save five people.  And, yes, there is a lot of research on moral decision making out there, if you are really interested in the current science on the subject.

Quote from: riprockWe will act aggressively for any excuse.

No, normal people don't.  They'll think about acting aggressively for all sorts of silly reasons but most normal people will stop themselves from turning those aggressive thoughts into actions, or will at least moderate their aggressiveness.  Basically, normal people consider the consequences of acting aggressively before doing so.  A culture that puts more of a liability on aggressive behavior will do more to discourage aggressive behavior than a culture that's indifferent to aggression or even normalizes it.  Of course these cultural pressures are stronger in places where people need each other than in places where people can go their own way with minimal liability.  

Quote from: riprockThe fact is that humans love to act on violent impulses, and humans love to take revenge.

Revenge actually seems to be hardcoded into human morality (chimpanzee morality, too).

Quote from: riprockWe are evolved to survive in a Neolithic ecosystem where violence and revenge are instrumental to survival.

We also needed cooperation, friendship, and trust to survive that same ecosystem.  You'll find both aggression and empathy in the healthy human psyche.

Quote from: riprockTranscending those instincts takes a great deal more than a lifetime of gracious sportsmanship, and the fact that one has never committed murder is not proof that one could restrain oneself from some equal atrocity, if given the opportunity.

Some cultures act to help restrain people from committing atrocities while others act to encourage atrocities.  One is more likely to commit atrocities against women, minorities, the poor, etc. if culture approves or even encourages such behavior than if culture disapproves of and punishes such behavior.  And I'm not talking about those cases where a society officially disapproves of a behavior but unofficially is indifferent or approves of the behavior, which is the danger of punishing the expression of hatred without changing the minds of those that hate.  I'm talking about genuine disapproval.

Quote from: riprockHumans act uncivilized from time to time and the chattering classes wonder whether the internet, or porn, or some other modern consumerist fetish is causing us to revert back to the Hobbesian war of All against All.

It's not possible to revert to something which never was.

Civilization isn't the elimination of this brutal human nature, it is the channeling of this nature into the service of greater causes. It is the city, the Polis, and a polis that will work depends on accepting and understanding this human nature and working with it, rather than seeking to eliminate it in some misguided utopia.

Even those great spiritual masters who indeed transcended their animal nature and discovered their real humanity were aware of this. Lao Tzu said "When the people are at one with the Tao, everything is in harmony; when people are not at one with the Tao, you need government".

RPGPundit

Well said.

Imagining that people are wholly bad is as foolish and dangerous as imagining they are wholly good.

Quote from: RPGPunditCivilization isn't the elimination of this brutal human nature, it is the channeling of this nature into the service of greater causes. It is the city, the Polis, and a polis that will work depends on accepting and understanding this human nature and working with it, rather than seeking to eliminate it in some misguided utopia.

Yes.  And I'm utterly at a loss to understand how you square that with your apparent fondness for the political left, which has repeatedly denied human nature or sought to eliminate or change it in a misguided attempt to create a utopia.  You are worried about Creationists on the right?  What about this sort of thing on the left?

Elements of the left and the right both have shown consistent disregard for the functioning of civilization.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowYes.  And I'm utterly at a loss to understand how you square that with your apparent fondness for the political left, which has repeatedly denied human nature or sought to eliminate or change it in a misguided attempt to create a utopia.  You are worried about Creationists on the right?  What about this sort of thing on the left?

It's curious to me that while the article mentions that there were past abuses of essentialism, they fail to mention current ones.  The opposite of extreme social constructionists aren't religious Creationists -- they're social darwinists, or evolutionary psychologists as they are usually called these days.  

Anyway, sure -- there are extremes on either side of the "nature versus nurture" debate who are strident and dogmatic.  The sane people are moderate.  

Ultimately, though, we don't really know what the answer to nature versus nurture is.  The past few centuries have seen many sweeping social changes -- some good, some bad.  I don't buy anyone who claims that they know a priori what "human nature" is -- and thus what social changes should or should not be pursued.  My issue with your phrasing is that you act as if "human nature" were an obvious known constant, that some people ignore in pursuit of some "misguided" change.  In my experience, the claim that "it's just human nature" is routinely deployed as an excuse for knee-jerk conservatism -- with social darwinism and evolutionary psychology as prime examples.  

(Not that all conservatism is knee-jerk, of course, but for any particular question I don't think that nature-vs-nurture has any reliable answers.  It's worth pursuing, but I don't expect answers any time soon.)

Quote from: John MorrowYes.  And I'm utterly at a loss to understand how you square that with your apparent fondness for the political left, which has repeatedly denied human nature or sought to eliminate or change it in a misguided attempt to create a utopia.  You are worried about Creationists on the right?  What about this sort of thing on the left?

Political Right and Left are meaningless terms. I prefer some combination of up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditElements of the left and the right both have shown consistent disregard for the functioning of civilization.

OK.  I have to agree with that.

This reminds me of something that Harlan Ellison once said back in the 1980s. He was on a talk show with 2 or 3 other Science Fiction writers. (Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury , I believe were 2 of the others) he said this :
 "I have a Love/Hate relationship with the human race. Why ? Because we've had the capability to destroy ourselves through nuclear annihilation for the past 40 years..and yet love because we have chosen NOT to . "

 Okay I'm paraphrasing from that from memory - but thats the gist of what he said.


- Ed C.



(It was the TOMORROW show with Tom Snyder as host. As much as he used to get mocked, Snyder had some pretty interesting choices in guests and topics at times. )

Quote from: jhkimUltimately, though, we don't really know what the answer to nature versus nurture is.

I would argue that it's probably a bit of both manifest as a tendency to behave a certain way that's not absolute or unchangeable.  

Quote from: jhkimI don't buy anyone who claims that they know a priori what "human nature" is -- and thus what social changes should or should not be pursued.  My issue with your phrasing is that you act as if "human nature" were an obvious known constant, that some people ignore in pursuit of some "misguided" change.  In my experience, the claim that "it's just human nature" is routinely deployed as an excuse for knee-jerk conservatism -- with social darwinism and evolutionary psychology as prime examples.

I do think that the elements of the right misuse human nature arguments and I'd have to agree that they certainly seem to attract the racist and sexist elements of the right.  But then the left goes to the other extreme and claims that people are a blank slate -- except when it comes to sexual orientation, at which point both sides curiously reverse their roles, with the left claiming that it's not something that people choose or that upbringing can change and the right claiming that it's entirely a matter of choice.  

As for the evidence, there is a substantial amount of evidence for both tendencies to behave in certain ways (e.g., look into research on Turner's Syndrome, for examploe) and that elements of human morality and socialization rely on subconscious emotional responses (it's those elements that are broken in psychopaths, people with autism, and so on).  

Quote from: jhkim(Not that all conservatism is knee-jerk, of course, but for any particular question I don't think that nature-vs-nurture has any reliable answers.  It's worth pursuing, but I don't expect answers any time soon.)

The problem is that it's very difficult to pursue or study when the people on the nurture side accuse anyone who even tries to research or study human nature of knuckle-dragging bigotry of the worst sort, copies of "The Mismeasure of Man" waving above their heads.  What that article depicts is that there are elements of the left who are so frightened by what science might show that they are rejecting the very idea of science.

And while both you and RPGPundit are correct to point out similar abuses on the right, the reason why Barbara Ehrenreich and Janet McIntosh wrote that article is that while it's popular to bash Creationists on the right for their ignorance, a similar anti-science perspective seems to be thriving on the left with little criticism.

Quote from: jhkimUltimately, though, we don't really know what the answer to nature versus nurture is.

I would argue that it's probably a bit of both manifest as a tendency to behave a certain way that's not absolute or unchangeable.  

Quote from: jhkimI don't buy anyone who claims that they know a priori what "human nature" is -- and thus what social changes should or should not be pursued.  My issue with your phrasing is that you act as if "human nature" were an obvious known constant, that some people ignore in pursuit of some "misguided" change.  In my experience, the claim that "it's just human nature" is routinely deployed as an excuse for knee-jerk conservatism -- with social darwinism and evolutionary psychology as prime examples.

I do think that the elements of the right misuse human nature arguments and I'd have to agree that they certainly seem to attract the racist and sexist elements of the right.  But then the left goes to the other extreme and claims that people are a blank slate -- except when it comes to sexual orientation, at which point both sides curiously reverse their roles, with the left claiming that it's not something that people choose or that upbringing can change and the right complaining that it's entirely a matter of choice.  

As for the evidence, there is a substantial amount of evidence for both tendencies to behave in certain ways (e.g., look into research on Turner's Syndrome, for examploe) and that elements of human morality and socialization that rely on subconscious emotional responses (it's those elements that are broken in psychopaths, people with autism, and so on).  There is definitely some hardcoding under there, even if it's just a base layer.

Quote from: jhkim(Not that all conservatism is knee-jerk, of course, but for any particular question I don't think that nature-vs-nurture has any reliable answers.  It's worth pursuing, but I don't expect answers any time soon.)

The problem is that it's very difficult to pursue or study when the people on the nurture side accuse anyone who even tries to research or study human nature of knuckle-dragging bigotry of the worst sort, copies of "The Mismeasure of Man" waving above their heads.  What that article depicts is that there are elements of the left who are so frightened by what science might show that they are rejecting the very idea of science.

And while both you and RPGPundit are correct to point out similar abuses on the right, the reason why Barbara Ehrenreich and Janet McIntosh wrote that article is that while it's popular to bash Creationists on the right for their ignorance, a similar anti-science perspective seems to be thriving on the left with little criticism.

Quote from: flyingmicePolitical Right and Left are meaningless terms. I prefer some combination of up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom.

-clash

Oh, you...oh, you keep the imaginary particles out of this! Wont someone think of the children!

Bill

First off... human nature? What is that? Seriously, if a human does it I think it's safe to assume it's within the bounds of human nature. Otherwise, we are forced to consider the possibility that the person is not a human or that the even itself was somehow unnatural.

As for the previous statements about morality and socialization being lacking in the psychopathic or autistic, even then certain things are on a case-by case basis. Hell, just because someone (say) doesn't pick up on body language, tone of voice, and other clues automatically doesn't mean that same person can't learn to pick up on those things with some effort. Morality is something else entirely. First you've got to figure out what it is. Then you've got to show me any kind of proof that the autistic don't have it. Psychopaths sometimes don't, I know, but I don't think it's even always the case with them.

But here's the really wrong part about the statement that autistic and psychotic people are lacking in elements of human nature. It assumes they aren't human (see my first paragraph). People like to change the definitions of things to glamorize some things and demonize others. People will call things art that aren't because they think art's cool and that by calling a thing art they make it cool too. In the same way, humans will call the worst humans not human, because they don't want to be associated with the worst of their kind. But the fact is that you belong to the same species as the myriad despots, serial killers, pedophiles, autistic, psychopathic, and just plain hateful among us. And the fact is that you could probably be just as bad as they are if you so chose. On the bright side, you also belong to the same species as the best of us, and all that that entails.

It's all something of a moot point though... what matters isn't what people can do. What matters is what people do.