Quote from: John MorrowI 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.

No one reasonable doubts that there is some hardcoding under there.  However, in practice it is extremely difficult to distinguish this from the culture and context.  The vast majority of psychological studies are done on a set of college students or hospital patients, from a set of universities of a single first-world country.  There is plenty of good work that can be done from this, but it doesn't really answer about the effects of cultural context.  People constantly leap from some such study based on such data to universals of human nature.  

Quote from: John MorrowAnd 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.

My experience from working in the physical sciences is that there are tons of scientists who are generally left-leaning as far as politics who are quite critical of perceived "anti-science" sentiment.  (Though also, in my experience, they rarely know much about what they are criticizing.)  

In a political context, though, no -- you're rarely going to see the right exposing and critizing extreme right-wing nuts; and you're rarely going to see the left exposing and criticizing extreme left-wing nuts.  That's just human nature.  

Quote from: beejazzFirst 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.

It is possible to assume that a person is abnormal without assuming that they are not human.  It is "natural" and "normal" for a human to have two hands with 5 fingers on each hand.  It's "natural" and "normal" for a person to be born with two hands and 5 fingers on each hand, yet some number of humans are born missing fingers or hands or even having extra hands or fingers.  That is not "natural" in the sense that it's not "normal", it often reflects a genetic or developmental defect.  And a person who loses a hand or a finger later in life is suffering from an injury or surgical modification.  None of that means that they are not human.

Quote from: beejazzAs 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.

Of course they can, but they have to do so in order to fit in with people who don't have those issues.  They have to consciously and deliberately do something that other people do without thinking about it.  In other words, they do as learned skills what other people do naturally with inborn abilities.  And it is those natural and normal inborn social and moral abilities that they need to learn how to emulate and adapt to.

Quote from: beejazzMorality is something else entirely. First you've got to figure out what it is.

They are using brain scans to get a pretty good sense of what it is.  Here is a pretty good layman overview article of the sort of research that is being done.

Quote from: beejazzThen 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.

I worded my generalization badly and apologize for that.  

Morality actually works pretty well in autistic people and they do seem to understand the distinction between a moral transgression and a conventional transgression (the distinction that psychopaths don't make).  It's psychopaths where moral responses seem to be badly broken.  

My intended point was that there are disorders and problems that people have that manifest as socialization problems, moral problems, etc. precisely because their nature (innate abilities and senses) differs from the human norm (i.e., "human nature").  In other words, I think that "human nature" should encompass the normal humans and not necessarily the full set of human possibilities, problems, abnormalities, and disorders included.

Quote from: beejazzBut 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).

No.  It assumes that they aren't normal.  Let me put it this way.  Do you think that people with autism or even Aspergers are normal or do you think those things are problems?  To avoid giving you a false choice, how would you characterize them with respect to the population of people who do not have any signs of autism?

Quote from: beejazzPeople 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.

I never claimed that they weren't human and, frankly, think it's irrelevant (that they are sentient is relevant, and would be if they were aliens).  And while it's possible that I could will myself to do just about anything, that I'd have to overcome my nature to behave certain ways while it's in another person's nature to behave in certain ways is not irrelevant or inconsequential.  The psychopath doesn't have to suppress their empathy and compassion to become a serial killer, because they naturally don't have it.

And this goes back to what I said earlier, "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."  I have a tendency to not be a serial killer, though I could probably become one given the right incentives or conditioning.  A psychopath does not necessarily have the tendency to become a serial killer but they lack the same tendencies to not become one.

Quote from: beejazzIt's all something of a moot point though... what matters isn't what people can do. What matters is what people do.

And what people do is a product of their environment (nurture) and hardwiring (nature).  If you can explain how some sort of free will that's not governed by either nature or nurture fits in, I'd be happy to look at your take on it.  Frankly, I'm still at a loss to explain what true free will is or how it could possibly work.

Quote from: jhkimNo one reasonable doubts that there is some hardcoding under there.

I've had discussions with people who apparently do doubt that, so I don't assume it's a given.  There is certainly a "blank slate" faction out there.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, in practice it is extremely difficult to distinguish this from the culture and context.  The vast majority of psychological studies are done on a set of college students or hospital patients, from a set of universities of a single first-world country.  There is plenty of good work that can be done from this, but it doesn't really answer about the effects of cultural context.  People constantly leap from some such study based on such data to universals of human nature.

And while I think there is some basis for some skepticism, I think such studies shouldn't necessarily be dismissed in the absence of better data.

Quote from: jhkimIn a political context, though, no -- you're rarely going to see the right exposing and critizing extreme right-wing nuts; and you're rarely going to see the left exposing and criticizing extreme left-wing nuts.  That's just human nature.  

While I think that statement is generally true, I think the popular media tends to shine a light on the right-wing nuts more than it does the left-wing nuts.  But, yes, there are nuts on both sides and both sides do an insufficient job of policing their own.

Quote from: John MorrowIt is possible to assume that a person is abnormal without assuming that they are not human.  It is "natural" and "normal" for a human to have two hands with 5 fingers on each hand.  It's "natural" and "normal" for a person to be born with two hands and 5 fingers on each hand, yet some number of humans are born missing fingers or hands or even having extra hands or fingers.  That is not "natural" in the sense that it's not "normal", it often reflects a genetic or developmental defect.  And a person who loses a hand or a finger later in life is suffering from an injury or surgical modification.  None of that means that they are not human.

Here's where it would be useful to clarify what human nature even means before deciding what fits in the category. Apparently you're referring to what is normal for people to do. Even though a huge part of the discussion is the exception (at least in the here and now) and not the rule. Frankly, if we're only talking about most people, then humanity did become civilized. That may or may not be true, but it makes for one hell of a boring internet discourse. Also, it really only takes a few freaks to make life suck for a whole lot of us or a few really incredible people to gather a crowd moving in a direction so much better than the norm. So you might say that certain specific minorities are more important than the majority. And it is entirely possible that this is itself a part of human nature.

If you're assuming that human nature is analyzing the norm, then yes people outside the norm fall outside the dynamic of human nature. I always kind of figured that the influence of the few over the many was a part of that, though. This refers more to the Hitlers and Gandhis of the world than the psychopaths and autistic, but there is a bit of crossover.

QuoteOf course they can, but they have to do so in order to fit in with people who don't have those issues.  They have to consciously and deliberately do something that other people do without thinking about it.  In other words, they do as learned skills what other people do naturally with inborn abilities.  And it is those natural and normal inborn social and moral abilities that they need to learn how to emulate and adapt to.

And it makes for a pretty shitty adolescence, let me tell you. It's not bad once you've learned to live with it. The fact is, though, that people act in their own best interest and on the knowledge they have (human nature). Up until the point where you learn, you will behave differently. After that point, though, you have access to the same info and are acting on roughly the same  impulses, regardless of where you got it. So someone who learned social behavior rather than acting instinctively still acts similarly to the human norm.

QuoteThey are using brain scans to get a pretty good sense of what it is.  Here is a pretty good layman overview article of the sort of research that is being done.

Interesting article there. I'll have to read more of it. Although, consider the possibility that the normal instincts are wrong. Maybe you should have smothered the baby in the house full of villagers hiding from soldiers. Maybe you'd rather a sociopath was holding that baby so you could live, but be allowed the comfort of blaming him. For the record, I am not advocating the suffocation of children.

QuoteI worded my generalization badly and apologize for that.  

Morality actually works pretty well in autistic people and they do seem to understand the distinction between a moral transgression and a conventional transgression (the distinction that psychopaths don't make).  It's psychopaths where moral responses seem to be badly broken.  

See, that makes better sense. I was beginning to get upset. If I was born without a moral compass, why was I not informed? I mean... being cold and heartless would be awesome, if maybe not worth psychosis.

QuoteMy intended point was that there are disorders and problems that people have that manifest as socialization problems, moral problems, etc. precisely because their nature (innate abilities and senses) differs from the human norm (i.e., "human nature").  In other words, I think that "human nature" should encompass the normal humans and not necessarily the full set of human possibilities, problems, abnormalities, and disorders included.

And my intended point is that looking into human nature means knowing that not all humans are created equal, and that human nature isn't totally similar across the board. There is still a great deal of room for variation even within the norm. Aspbergers specifically seems more to me like hair on the knuckles than a missing or extra finger. Maybe it's just because I have it and it doesn't suck nearly as bad as a visible deformity, but...

My other point is that there isn't just nature but experience. Also drugs. Drugs change lots of things. Salvia changes lots and lots of things.

QuoteNo.  It assumes that they aren't normal.  Let me put it this way.  Do you think that people with autism or even Aspergers are normal or do you think those things are problems?  To avoid giving you a false choice, how would you characterize them with respect to the population of people who do not have any signs of autism?

Autism sucks to have, from what I understand. More or less depending on how bad it is. People with aspbergers may never actually be normal, but they are capable of behaving in such a way that you can't tell. And assuming we're still defining human nature based on how people act and not what thought processes inform those actions, that's a pretty big distinction.

What people do because they have aspbergers is not outside the human norm. What people do because they have autism isn't even outside the human norm. What people do because they are depressed isn't outside of the human norm.

Humans act on goals they perceive as being in their own best interest, using the best means available to them. Across the board. There are stipulations strong enough to prevent self-interest in most but not all.

And look at that. Human nature. Accounting for the aberrant among us (who act differently only because the means available to us are different or because our goals may differ). And before you bring up suicide... I would say that suicide attempts are the result of confused priorities and thinking it's in your own best interest, but I know that's bull. Most suicide attempts happen on impulse. I'll call that the single aberration, because even people who show no outward signs of depression get the itch now and again.

QuoteAnd this goes back to what I said earlier, "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."  I have a tendency to not be a serial killer, though I could probably become one given the right incentives or conditioning.  A psychopath does not necessarily have the tendency to become a serial killer but they lack the same tendencies to not become one.

Somewhere, there's a potential serial killer wondering what's missing in his life. And he'll never know because he never had a first victim. He'll never know just how fulfilling killing might have been.

Somewhere else, there are soldiers, who might never have killed, doing it anyway. They could have gone their whole lives not knowing that specific kind of horror.

A person's nature influences their actions, but remember circumstance. Are you really unable to kill, or has there just never been a reason because you happen to live in a first world country?

QuoteAnd what people do is a product of their environment (nurture) and hardwiring (nature).  If you can explain how some sort of free will that's not governed by either nature or nurture fits in, I'd be happy to look at your take on it.  Frankly, I'm still at a loss to explain what true free will is or how it could possibly work.

I prefer to believe in free will, but I'm not going to even attempt to debate it until I've got a better understanding of quantum physics and such. Suffice to say the mechanistic universe is suck. You can't prove or disprove it, and between two unverifiable world views it's the less empowering and more prone to fatalism.

Quote from: beejazzHere's where it would be useful to clarify what human nature even means before deciding what fits in the category. Apparently you're referring to what is normal for people to do. Even though a huge part of the discussion is the exception (at least in the here and now) and not the rule. Frankly, if we're only talking about most people, then humanity did become civilized. That may or may not be true, but it makes for one hell of a boring internet discourse. Also, it really only takes a few freaks to make life suck for a whole lot of us or a few really incredible people to gather a crowd moving in a direction so much better than the norm. So you might say that certain specific minorities are more important than the majority. And it is entirely possible that this is itself a part of human nature.

The gist is that human moral decisions have a conscious rational component (the utilitarian component that says it's better to kill one person than 5) and an emotional component (the emotional component that makes a person horrified by the idea of pushing one person to their death to save 5).  When a person makes a moral decision, it produces a rational response and an emotional response that each have an intensity.  The more intense response tends to win.

Certain things tend to predictably produce disgust in normal human beings including being cheated (which is often intense enough to trigger a revenge response) and hurting friends.  This is why there are well known areas where game theorists predict that the most rational way for a human to behave is one way, and most test subjects behave in a different way.  And these same responses can be observed in chimpanzees, which lends weight to the idea that they are hardcoded.  Here is another article that discusses some of the elements.

There are a whole host of these innate feelings that play a role in the decisions people make without having to rationally consider everything they do.  For example, there are about 100 people who are known that lack a sense of fear.  Just as the autistic person needs to learn how to respond appropriately to social situations, those people need to learn how to rationally watch out for things that can kill them, because there is no little voice in their head that tells them, "That's dangerous!  Stop!" if they go to step out into the street or pick up a knife by the sharp end.  There are also people who suffer brain injuries that result in dramatic shifts in personality and behavior.  Phineas Gage is another good historical example to look at.

I mentioned Turner's Syndrome earlier.  That's a person with a single X and no Y chromosome.  They are physically female but generally small in stature and infertile.  If they inherit their X from the father, their behavior tends to be more feminine but if they get their X from the mother, their behavior tends to be more masculine, which leads some researches to believe that chromosome undergoes a change and that it's the X that men get from their mothers that produces typical masculine behavior.

Quote from: beejazzAnd it makes for a pretty shitty adolescence, let me tell you. It's not bad once you've learned to live with it. The fact is, though, that people act in their own best interest and on the knowledge they have (human nature). Up until the point where you learn, you will behave differently. After that point, though, you have access to the same info and are acting on roughly the same  impulses, regardless of where you got it. So someone who learned social behavior rather than acting instinctively still acts similarly to the human norm.

When given the time to.  The reason why humans have all of these instinctual responses is that they are very fast and you don't need to think about them.  So they work when you are tired, when your guard is down, when you don't have complete information, when you have to make a quick judgment, etc.  So while a person can be trained to learn how to respond by thinking it through, they can't always do it as quickly as a normal person can and can do it badly if they let their guard or level of effort down.  A friend (who has issues that aren't Aspergers, though her son has it) has to think her way through social situations and has gotten frustrated while role-playing because she can't keep up with everyone else when the game starts moving very quickly.  By the time she things through how to respond, the game has moved on past the point where it's an appropriate response.

Quote from: beejazzInteresting article there. I'll have to read more of it. Although, consider the possibility that the normal instincts are wrong. Maybe you should have smothered the baby in the house full of villagers hiding from soldiers. Maybe you'd rather a sociopath was holding that baby so you could live, but be allowed the comfort of blaming him. For the record, I am not advocating the suffocation of children.

Well, Joshua Greene, one of the researchers mentioned in that article (his homepage is here) does actually argue that the instinct is wrong and that we should be utilitarians.  But I disagree.  I disagree not only because there are game theory examples where I think the game theorists are wrong and instinct is right but psychopaths are often highly intelligent and rational people, yet that doesn't make them behave morally.  It's instinct and emotion that makes us even care whether those hypothetical villagers live or die because the cold rational universe certainly doesn't care, nor does the psychopath.

For example, there is an exercise in game theory where a researcher gives one person 10 $1 bills and tells them to divide the money however they want between them and another person.  The second person gets to decide if they both keep the money they have or both lose everything.  According to game theorists, even if the first person gives the second person $1, the second person should let them both keep the money because they both wind up with more money than they started out with.  In reality what happens is that the second person will reject any division that's doesn't give them at least roughly half the money.  Why are the game theorists wrong?  Because what happens in practice is that the first person will naturally divide the money roughly equally because they know they'll get nothing if they don't offer the second person a fair deal.  If we didn't have that instinct, the first person would always give the second person $1 and walk away with $9 because they'd know the other person would go along with the unfair deal.  Thus the instinct, rather than utilitarian game theory, produces a society where people feel obliged to treat each other fairly.  In fact, other studies show that people will even cost themselves money to get revenge on someone else who has treated them unfairly, thus we have a strong incentive to not cheat each other, or at least not get caught doing it.

And if you are interested in the psychopath angle, here is a paper published in a philosophy journal (that I've mentioned in the past) that addresses the problem that psychopaths pose to the idea that behaving morally can be derived from rational thought alone.  What psychopaths show is that reasoned morality free of emotional checks and balances doesn't produce moral behavior.  Quite the opposite, actually.  Because the core of morality is caring (about others, the future, the planet, what others think, consequences, etc.) and caring is ultimately an emotional response, not a rational one.

Quote from: beejazzSee, that makes better sense. I was beginning to get upset. If I was born without a moral compass, why was I not informed? I mean... being cold and heartless would be awesome, if maybe not worth psychosis.

Like I said, my mistake.  And what's interesting about that is that even though they have a social handicap, autistic people still understand right from wrong roughly like a normal person does.  That suggests that isn't not necessarily empathy that's not working correctly in autistic people.  Psychopaths can often pick up on what autistic people miss such as the emotions another person is expressing and what another person is thinking (which they often use to become quite charismatic and to manipulate and use people) but they don't attach any emotional context to it.  That another person is frightened doesn't make them feel anything for that person other than perhaps fascination about what it must be like for them.  They don't feel what the other person is feeling.  From the article on psychopaths that I provided a link to above, "In Without Conscience, [Robert Hare] quotes a psychopathic rapist explaining why he finds it hard to empathize with his victims: 'They are frightened, right? But, you see, I don't really understand it. I've been frightened myself, and it wasn't unpleasant.'"  Pleasant or unpleasant is an emotional response, not a rational one.

Quote from: beejazzAnd my intended point is that looking into human nature means knowing that not all humans are created equal, and that human nature isn't totally similar across the board. There is still a great deal of room for variation even within the norm. Aspbergers specifically seems more to me like hair on the knuckles than a missing or extra finger. Maybe it's just because I have it and it doesn't suck nearly as bad as a visible deformity, but...

Well, autism is a spectrum disorder.  It depends on how badly you have it and how well you've learned how to deal with it.  My friend's son who has Aspergers, which wasn't diagnosed into his teens (and was misdiagnosed before that) is essentially disabled as far as his ability to hold a job goes.  And while a few people with full-blown autism have overcome it (most notably Temple Grandin), most have a very rough life indeed.  

As I mentioned above, I also believe that psychopathy is a spectrum disorder and a person who suffers from mild narcissism is much nicer to be around than a full-blown psychopath who pushes an infant into a pool and pulls up a chair because they always wanted to see someone drown.  

But in both cases, the further the person moves from the norm, the less their nature resembles normal human nature and the more trouble they'll have fitting in.  Even if they do learn how to compensate, that they have to compensate requires continual effort to do something that other people do effortlessly.

All that that ultimately suggests to me that human nature is something real, that people who differ from what's normal in certain ways don't think or react the same way that normal people do (at least internally), and that these innate responses reflect outwardly in the way human beings behave.

Quote from: beejazzMy other point is that there isn't just nature but experience. Also drugs. Drugs change lots of things. Salvia changes lots and lots of things.

Well, I said from the beginning that I think it's nature and nurture.  But the more nurture tries to fight nature, the less reliable and consistent the nurture is going to be at changing the nature.  As for drugs, I think drugs illustrate just how much of human behavior is the product of mental processes beyond conscious control.  That drugs can make changes that force of will can't is telling, in my opinion.

Quote from: beejazzAutism sucks to have, from what I understand. More or less depending on how bad it is. People with aspbergers may never actually be normal, but they are capable of behaving in such a way that you can't tell. And assuming we're still defining human nature based on how people act and not what thought processes inform those actions, that's a pretty big distinction.

Well, remember that I'm not (as you assumed) trying to define autistic people or even psychopaths as not human.  What I'm saying is that normal humans have a particular nature (i.e., "human nature") and that the nature of autistic people and psychopaths differs from that norm in specific predictable ways that will manifest in their actions unless they consciously and purposely emulate what normal people do intuitively.  And it's great that people with autism and Aspergers can learn how to behave in socially normal ways and there are techniques to encourage psychopaths to behave in morally normal ways but those often require a recognition of the difference and unless the person is astute enough to help themselves, the help of others who don't simply treat them like a normal person.

Quote from: beejazzWhat people do because they have aspbergers is not outside the human norm. What people do because they have autism isn't even outside the human norm. What people do because they are depressed isn't outside of the human norm.

I think it is.  Otherwise, why would those things have names?  Do we have a special name for a person who doesn't have Asbergers, doesn't have autism, and isn't clinically depressed?  Those things are recognized as problems, handicaps, disorders, and so on because they differ from the norm.  And the case of people with full-blown autism, if everyone in a society was that way, it would be non-functional and they'd probably die off fairly quickly without normal people to help them out.  And I think a society of nothing but full-blown psychopaths probably wouldn't be much more successful.  That people with Aspergers can and do get by is because they are close to the norm.  But the further you get from that norm, the less functional people become, even if they were in a society of only like-minded people.

Quote from: beejazzHumans act on goals they perceive as being in their own best interest, using the best means available to them. Across the board. There are stipulations strong enough to prevent self-interest in most but not all.

I don't think it's always that simple.  For example, the revenge reflex often causes people to act against their own self interest to avenge injustice among others.  And if you read the first article I provided a link to, most people are unwilling to physically cause the death of another for even sound utilitarian reasons.  There is certainly self-interest in there, but if you want to see what raw self-interest looks like, look at psychopaths.  From the article on psychopaths, above:

   In his chilling 1993 book on psychopathy, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, [Robert Hare] quotes one specimen's memories: "[M]y mother, the most beautiful person in the world. She was strong, she worked hard to take care of four kids. A beautiful person. I started stealing her jewellery when I was in the fifth grade. You know, I never really knew the bitch -- we went our separate ways."

...and...

   Non-psychopaths respond faster and display more brain activity when processing emotionally loaded words such as "rape" or "cancer" than when they see neutral words such as "tree." With psychopaths, Hare found no difference. To them, "rape" and "tree" have the same emotional impact -- none.

...and...

   It's also found practical applications in police-squad rooms. Soon after he delivered a keynote speech at a conference for homicide detectives and prosecuting attorneys in Seattle three years ago, Hare got a letter thanking him for helping solve a series of homicides. The police had a suspect nailed for a couple of murders, but believed he was responsible for others. They were using the usual strategy to get a confession, telling him, 'Think how much better you'll feel, think of the families left behind,' and so on. After they'd heard Hare speak they realized they were dealing with a psychopath, someone who could feel neither guilt nor sorrow. They changed their interrogation tactic to, "So you murdered a couple of prostitutes. That's minor-league compared to Bundy or Gacy." The appeal to the psychopath's grandiosity worked. He didn't just confess to his other crimes, he bragged about them.

Here is a article on psychopaths that does a pretty good job of framing the difference and problem.  In fact, as I've found in discussions about the nature of Evil in role-playing games, people do have a lot of trouble believing that a person can think in the way that full-blown psychopaths apparently do, a fact that they use to their advantage.  Think of how much of trusting others is based on counting on them having the same moral compass as you do.

Quote from: beejazzAnd look at that. Human nature. Accounting for the aberrant among us (who act differently only because the means available to us are different or because our goals may differ). And before you bring up suicide... I would say that suicide attempts are the result of confused priorities and thinking it's in your own best interest, but I know that's bull. Most suicide attempts happen on impulse. I'll call that the single aberration, because even people who show no outward signs of depression get the itch now and again.

I think it is a mistake to assume that even the most aberrant among us only act differently because of differences in goals or means.  But even if I accept that people behave out of self-interest for the sake of argument, what a person perceives as being in their own self-interest depends on how they perceive the world around them and what they think is important.  For example, a person who does not consider the love of their mother to be in their own self-interest will have no qualms about stealing from her.  A person who doesn't care if they are seen as a monster won't have the same incentive to not behave like a monster as a person who does care.  And it's what people care about that matters a great deal.

Quote from: beejazzSomewhere, there's a potential serial killer wondering what's missing in his life. And he'll never know because he never had a first victim. He'll never know just how fulfilling killing might have been.

Somewhere else, there are soldiers, who might never have killed, doing it anyway. They could have gone their whole lives not knowing that specific kind of horror.

A person's nature influences their actions, but remember circumstance. Are you really unable to kill, or has there just never been a reason because you happen to live in a first world country?

This doesn't contradict what I'm saying.  I've said it's both.

But reverse your roles.  The normal person who might never have killed is going to react a particular way to killing, anyway, which is why so many soldiers come home with post-traumatic stress disorder.  The psychopath might actually get a kick out of it.  Similarly, the psychopath might become a serial killer if given the opportunity where a normal person wouldn't think about doing that.  And that's where the tendency matters.  50% of violent criminals are psychopaths despite being 4% or maybe even 8% of the population for a reason.  Yes, that other 50% of violent criminals might be normal, but it's a lot easier to tip a psychopath over the edge because there is less resistance stopping them.

Quote from: beejazzI prefer to believe in free will, but I'm not going to even attempt to debate it until I've got a better understanding of quantum physics and such. Suffice to say the mechanistic universe is suck. You can't prove or disprove it, and between two unverifiable world views it's the less empowering and more prone to fatalism.

Why do you care about whether it's empowering or fatalistic?  If you are being entirely rational, shouldn't you simply care about which is more supported by the evidence?  Is the reason why you prefer to believe in free will emotional or rational?

QuoteCertain things tend to predictably produce disgust in normal human beings including being cheated (which is often intense enough to trigger a revenge response) and hurting friends.

Oddly, I can't relate to a retaliatory instinct on being cheated, lied to, or duped. It simply isn't that big a deal to me. I won't trust the person with anything that matters again, but otherwise... I mean... revenge?

The revenge for a wronged friend or family I get. I mean... the tendency to clique up and protect our own is pretty strong. I've actually seen it stronger in the more generally socially inept.

QuoteThere are a whole host of these innate feelings that play a role in the decisions people make without having to rationally consider everything they do.  For example, there are about 100 people who are known that lack a sense of fear.  Just as the autistic person needs to learn how to respond appropriately to social situations, those people need to learn how to rationally watch out for things that can kill them, because there is no little voice in their head that tells them, "That's dangerous!  Stop!" if they go to step out into the street or pick up a knife by the sharp end.  There are also people who suffer brain injuries that result in dramatic shifts in personality and behavior.  Phineas Gage is another good historical example to look at.

I think a lack of fear is a more fundamental problem even than psychosis. Seriously, social behaviors seem a more recent development than self-preservation instincts.

QuoteWhen given the time to.  The reason why humans have all of these instinctual responses is that they are very fast and you don't need to think about them.  So they work when you are tired, when your guard is down, when you don't have complete information, when you have to make a quick judgment, etc.  So while a person can be trained to learn how to respond by thinking it through, they can't always do it as quickly as a normal person can and can do it badly if they let their guard or level of effort down.  A friend (who has issues that aren't Aspergers, though her son has it) has to think her way through social situations and has gotten frustrated while role-playing because she can't keep up with everyone else when the game starts moving very quickly.  By the time she things through how to respond, the game has moved on past the point where it's an appropriate response.

Hell, I know it changes things. I couldn't go to dances in high school after a certain point, and still have problems with larger groups because I'll stretch myself thin trying to participate in every conversation simultaneously instead of gravitating to one and drifting through the others like everybody seems to do. And yeah, there are times when I'd rather not interact with people at all, because it's tiring. And yeah you get to be a bit of a sycophant just by learning. Still, the difference isn't so fundamental. Social interaction that's a little poorly paced isn't much changed otherwise. Some things do go on a case by case basis, though. Whereas your friend has a hard time with the roleplaying, part of why I'm so into geek shiz is it's an easy conversation topic if you know what you're talking about, and alot of people can relate.

QuoteWell, Joshua Greene, one of the researchers mentioned in that article (his homepage is here) does actually argue that the instinct is wrong and that we should be utilitarians.  But I disagree.  I disagree not only because there are game theory examples where I think the game theorists are wrong and instinct is right but psychopaths are often highly intelligent and rational people, yet that doesn't make them behave morally.  It's instinct and emotion that makes us even care whether those hypothetical villagers live or die because the cold rational universe certainly doesn't care, nor does the psychopath.

I don't know that I'd set up either the rational or the emotional response as wrong. Humans have both because both are useful. And as you've mentioned, psychosis and autism are both "spectrum diseases." Honestly, though, I think there's a spectrum even among the functioning when it comes to how moral, how rational, how social, or how obsessive a person is.

QuoteLike I said, my mistake.  And what's interesting about that is that even though they have a social handicap, autistic people still understand right from wrong roughly like a normal person does.  That suggests that isn't not necessarily empathy that's not working correctly in autistic people.

I wish I could offer more insight here, but if I'm missing something I'm not sure what it is exactly.

QuotePsychopaths can often pick up on what autistic people miss such as the emotions another person is expressing and what another person is thinking (which they often use to become quite charismatic and to manipulate and use people) but they don't attach any emotional context to it.

I don't know. I know what a person feels when it gets absolutely obvious. And as far as learned stuff I figured... y'know... fuck the stuff I'm bad at, like tone of voice and body language. I get by on reading a person by their words. It really helps if a person's trying to lie to me, as counterintuitive as that sounds. It works better than you'd think.

QuoteThat another person is frightened doesn't make them feel anything for that person other than perhaps fascination about what it must be like for them.  They don't feel what the other person is feeling.

Wait... people are supposed to *feel* what other people are feeling? I actually think that's rarer than you're making it sound. Most people pick up on these things, but I doubt most of them share the experience in any real way.

QuoteWell, autism is a spectrum disorder.  It depends on how badly you have it and how well you've learned how to deal with it.  My friend's son who has Aspergers, which wasn't diagnosed into his teens (and was misdiagnosed before that) is essentially disabled as far as his ability to hold a job goes.  And while a few people with full-blown autism have overcome it (most notably Temple Grandin), most have a very rough life indeed.

Yeah, those misdiagnoses can be a bitch. Especially with the bullshit that is "hyperfocusing ADD." Whatever the fuck that is. Giving hyper kids watered down speed is a cultural trend I'd like to see go away. Anyway, yeah... I'm one of the lucky ones. It sucks for most.

QuoteAs I mentioned above, I also believe that psychopathy is a spectrum disorder and a person who suffers from mild narcissism is much nicer to be around than a full-blown psychopath who pushes an infant into a pool and pulls up a chair because they always wanted to see someone drown.  

It's true; the mild narcissists can be fun to be around. Oddly, the few I've known have displayed similar extremely cliquish behavior to that I've mentioned earlier.

QuoteAll that that ultimately suggests to me that human nature is something real, that people who differ from what's normal in certain ways don't think or react the same way that normal people do (at least internally), and that these innate responses reflect outwardly in the way human beings behave.

I agree that there is a norm, that most people fit closely within that norm, and that people who stray further from the norm are in a greater minority (which I think is what you're getting at with a previous, somewhat tautological statement). But I also think that there is a great degree of variation within that norm. Most people have one or two habitual behaviors not shared by most other people, as counterintuitive as that sounds. I'm convinced that within the norm, people still aren't equal in all things.

QuoteWell, I said from the beginning that I think it's nature and nurture.  But the more nurture tries to fight nature, the less reliable and consistent the nurture is going to be at changing the nature.  As for drugs, I think drugs illustrate just how much of human behavior is the product of mental processes beyond conscious control.  That drugs can make changes that force of will can't is telling, in my opinion.

For the record, I think "nurture" is a shitty label for the changes wrought on an individual by circumstance rather than accident of birth and all that. Makes it sound like blaming a person's parents, when in fact I think that whole parenting thing has less of an impact than people give it credit for.

But there is the whole bit with the neural connections getting fewer and stronger as a person reaches adulthood. The way a person thinks when they're young sets the precedent for how they'll think when they're older. And as was said before, studies are often nearly exclusive to first world countries, college students, patients, etc. Huge swaths of other cultures or time periods might not have had some of our specific qualms or impulses, including those we count as universal.

QuoteWell, remember that I'm not (as you assumed) trying to define autistic people or even psychopaths as not human.

Oh, I didn't think you'd intentionally say something like that. I was pointing out that you seemed to imply it.

QuoteWhat I'm saying is that normal humans have a particular nature (i.e., "human nature") and that the nature of autistic people and psychopaths differs from that norm in specific predictable ways that will manifest in their actions unless they consciously and purposely emulate what normal people do intuitively

Yep. They're different. I think, though, that people might get a better glimpse at the constant if we didn't assume the ideal wasn't variable.

QuoteI think it is.  Otherwise, why would those things have names?  Do we have a special name for a person who doesn't have Asbergers, doesn't have autism, and isn't clinically depressed?  Those things are recognized as problems, handicaps, disorders, and so on because they differ from the norm.  And the case of people with full-blown autism, if everyone in a society was that way, it would be non-functional and they'd probably die off fairly quickly without normal people to help them out.  And I think a society of nothing but full-blown psychopaths probably wouldn't be much more successful.  That people with Aspergers can and do get by is because they are close to the norm.  But the further you get from that norm, the less functional people become, even if they were in a society of only like-minded people.

I can think of words to define normal members of society. There's sane, well, adjusted, you name it. There are words that distinguish the normal from the abnormal. Also, they aren't considered handicaps etc. because they differ from the norm. They're considered as such because they're inconvenient. If the rarity of a thing dictated its status as an illness I think we'd have begun developing treatments for geniuses.

I know it's not what you meant, but this is the internet.

QuoteI don't think it's always that simple.  For example, the revenge reflex often causes people to act against their own self interest to avenge injustice among others.

Again, humans are social animals. One of the ways we've adapted is to develop behaviors so we can work as members of a group, and share an identity on the basis of the group or groups to which we belong. So in a way, revenge over a wrong done to someone we care about is eliminating a threat to our "self" insofar as we see ourselves as more than just ourselves, but also members of the groups to which we belong.

QuoteHere is a article on psychopaths that does a pretty good job of framing the difference and problem.  In fact, as I've found in discussions about the nature of Evil in role-playing games, people do have a lot of trouble believing that a person can think in the way that full-blown psychopaths apparently do, a fact that they use to their advantage.  Think of how much of trusting others is based on counting on them having the same moral compass as you do.

I don't find it surprising at all that psychopaths can think the way they do. Hell, I've lacked a social qualm or two myself in my day, if for other reasons. Didn't think anything of lying stealing or manipulating people as a kid, and having done some babysitting I find that particular problem not uncommon in kids. Hell, I wasn't violent and you don't find out a kid is violent by babysitting, but I learned at school that qualms against violence are probably a developed thing, and that qualms about killing might very well only be fear of retaliation for some.

Maybe it's a little jaded, but in my experience, normal people do some pretty abnormal things.

QuoteI think it is a mistake to assume that even the most aberrant among us only act differently because of differences in goals or means.  But even if I accept that people behave out of self-interest for the sake of argument, what a person perceives as being in their own self-interest depends on how they perceive the world around them and what they think is important.  For example, a person who does not consider the love of their mother to be in their own self-interest will have no qualms about stealing from her.  A person who doesn't care if they are seen as a monster won't have the same incentive to not behave like a monster as a person who does care.  And it's what people care about that matters a great deal.

See? Useful information across the board. People will behave differently if their goals, means, and qualms are different. It's better to know all three than make assumptions on the basis of the norm.

QuoteBut reverse your roles.  The normal person who might never have killed is going to react a particular way to killing, anyway, which is why so many soldiers come home with post-traumatic stress disorder.  The psychopath might actually get a kick out of it.  Similarly, the psychopath might become a serial killer if given the opportunity where a normal person wouldn't think about doing that.  And that's where the tendency matters.  50% of violent criminals are psychopaths despite being 4% or maybe even 8% of the population for a reason.  Yes, that other 50% of violent criminals might be normal, but it's a lot easier to tip a psychopath over the edge because there is less resistance stopping them.

This is part of what I'm getting at. I can't know if the first murder for a serial killer is planned or impulsive because I personally have neither made plans, had an impulse, nor followed through. But there's a difference between having no qualms and having a specific desire to do a thing. I've got a sneaking suspicion that the latter only comes after the first instance...

..but then, I guess it's a moot point.

Also... 50% of violent criminals? I really never thought of any of the violent criminals I've known as being psychopathic. Okay, maybe one or two, but I've known a bunch of violent criminals. Then again, they were minors when I knew them, so that may skew things a little. It's easy to fuck up when you're young and stupid... which may account for why there are so many otherwise sane violent criminals to begin with.

QuoteWhy do you care about whether it's empowering or fatalistic?  If you are being entirely rational, shouldn't you simply care about which is more supported by the evidence?  Is the reason why you prefer to believe in free will emotional or rational?

Of course I pick the emotional approach when the rational approach ceases to be viable. If I can't objectively know the truth, why not just believe what makes me happy? Not as an overall approach to philosophy, mind you, just as a placeholder for those things I can't know.

I'm not a psychopath, after all.