Discussion How much of human behavior is innate and how much is correctable over time via culture?

[SchrodingerIsDed]

This is a continuation of a discussion @Jorvak and I were having. Feel free to pitch in.

 

[Jorvak]

woops, i just realized you set something up here, after i set something up on my profile page. I'll post my screens of the context here

Original start of the discussion: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/political-views-and-ctb.194350/page-7#post-2895063

Here is the context screens:

Spoiler

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

No worries. Okay, thanks Jorvak.

Any input on the poll reading? I was a bit hurried in forming it, having to arrest all the potheads in the boy/girl thread. I can still edit it. Also I'll make sure to give a proper reply to your last post in the political views thread where we started.

 

[Jorvak]

No worries. Okay, thanks Jorvak.

Any input on the poll reading? I was a bit hurried in forming it, having to arrest all the potheads in the boy/girl thread. I can still edit it. Also I'll make sure to give a proper reply to your last post in the political views thread where we started.

I think the wording of the options in the poll could be improved

The first option:

Human Behavior is innate, dictated by raw instincts, with a limited ability for a persons behavior to change beyond those raw instincts through individual experiences or education.

The second option.

Human Behavior is malleable, largely a reflection of a persons Individual experiences, culture and upbringing - instincts and behavior can be changed and honed through experiences.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm sure genetics pass on traits or, tendency to develop certain traits. However, I think so much about us is learnt and comes about via life experiences.

To take another example. Dogs that have been bred to have certain traits. That would mean that all bully breed dogs are dangerous and violent. Do they have that potential? Yes. All dogs do. All humans do too. Are they more likely to go that route? Possibly. However- surely, it mostly hinges on how they are treated and trained. Not all bully breed dogs will be violent.

Not all humans with abusive or kind parents turn out as carbon copies of their parents. However, I expect we do have proclivities for certain behaviours/ certain strengths. Plus, our parents may mould us in their own image.

One I'm very curious about is motivation. Is motivation an inherited thing? Are some people naturally more pro-active than others? Is lazyness inherited, learnt, chosen or, is it a symptom of mental illness?

 

[Jorvak]

I'm sure genetics pass on traits or, tendency to develop certain traits. However, I think so much about us is learnt and comes about via life experiences.

To take another example. Dogs that have been bred to have certain traits. That would mean that all bully breed dogs are dangerous and violent. Do they have that potential? Yes. All dogs do. All humans do too. Are they more likely to go that route? Possibly. However- surely, it mostly hinges on how they are treated and trained. Not all bully breed dogs will be violent.

Not all humans with abusive or kind parents turn out as carbon copies of their parents. However, I expect we do have proclivities for certain behaviours/ certain strengths. Plus, our parents may mould us in their own image.

One I'm very curious about is motivation. Is motivation an inherited thing? Are some people naturally more pro-active than others? Is lazyness inherited, learnt, chosen or, is it a symptom of mental illness?

I totally agree. While my autism genetically predisposes me to certain behaviors, the way my autism presents and how i think about the world is entirely shaped by things i have learned throughout my life. My opinions and behavior have changed dramatically from when i was young, and generally this is true of most people.

Like you said, even the behavior of specific dog breeds that may have 'predispositions' to certain behaviors, depend heavily on their training to shape their behavior. If untrained, they might lean in more on those predispositions, but with training, they can be loyal and very people friendly. plus, there is often a wide range of behavior even in specific dog breeds.

Your example of the fact that humans don't necessarily follow their upbringing, especially an abusive one, is a really good one. on the not of parents who try to shape children "into their own image", it's something i have a deep disgust for, because it totally destroys a childs agency to explore their own interest, hobbies and strengths, as well as their intellectual and emotional agency.

I think motivations shift heavily based on a mix of a persons mindset, mood, circumstances and values. A deeply depressed person often has no interest in anything at all, for example. A person who is devalued in society, is much more likely to become depressed and have no motivation to do anything, but a person who is valued and is given opportunities to find their place in society is likely to develop a motivation to contribute. That's why we need a society that is based on human dignity and serving the advancement of humanity, and that provides everyone the opportunity to thrive, to become educated without restriction or 'paywalls', and to become the best versions of themselves. When people are provided these means, they can explore themselves, learn new skills and develop their own motivations.

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

The first option:

Human Behavior is innate, dictated by raw instincts, with a limited ability for a persons behavior to change beyond those raw instincts through individual experiences or education.

The second option.

Human Behavior is malleable, largely a reflection of a persons Individual experiences, culture and upbringing - instincts and behavior can be changed and honed through experiences.

Damn, they cut off. Poll length isn't long enough. Oh well.

I totally agree. While my autism genetically predisposes me to certain behaviors, the way my autism presents and how i think about the world is entirely shaped by things i have learned throughout my life. My opinions and behavior have changed dramatically from when i was young, and generally this is true of most people.

Like you said, even the behavior of specific dog breeds that may have 'predispositions' to certain behaviors, depend heavily on their training to shape their behavior. If untrained, they might lean in more on those predispositions, but with training, they can be loyal and very people friendly. plus, there is often a wide range of behavior even in specific dog breeds.

Your example of the fact that humans don't necessarily follow their upbringing, especially an abusive one, is a really good one. on the not of parents who try to shape children "into their own image", it's something i have a deep disgust for, because it totally destroys a childs agency to explore their own interest, hobbies and strengths, as well as their intellectual and emotional agency.

I think motivations shift heavily based on a mix of a persons mindset, mood, circumstances and values. A deeply depressed person often has no interest in anything at all, for example. A person who is devalued in society, is much more likely to become depressed and have no motivation to do anything, but a person who is valued and is given opportunities to find their place in society is likely to develop a motivation to contribute. That's why we need a society that is based on human dignity and serving the advancement of humanity, and that provides everyone the opportunity to thrive, to become educated without restriction or 'paywalls', and to become the best versions of themselves. When people are provided these means, they can explore themselves, learn new skills and develop their own motivations.

I agree with this, actually. Lemme go back over your first one, though SWIM took a few too many xanax and brain is not doing so well.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

A lot of human behaviour comes down to a mixture between our genes and the environment. I feel like you can't really reduce it down to either or. I think that around half of our behaviour can be attributed to genetics and the other half can be attributed to our environment. Nature and nature tend to be pretty intertwined and how they influence our behaviours is pretty complex. I feel like a discussion like this cannot really be had through answering a poll with 4 options (two of which come off as basically just the same option but worded differently). Human behaviour is malleable but the degree to which it is malleable depends on many factors, such as age, which aspects of behaviour you are referring to, neuroplasticity, etc. I also don't understand what is meant by the term "correctable". What is meant by that? I feel like that term is a bit vague.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I totally agree. While my autism genetically predisposes me to certain behaviors, the way my autism presents and how i think about the world is entirely shaped by things i have learned throughout my life. My opinions and behavior have changed dramatically from when i was young, and generally this is true of most people.

Like you said, even the behavior of specific dog breeds that may have 'predispositions' to certain behaviors, depend heavily on their training to shape their behavior. If untrained, they might lean in more on those predispositions, but with training, they can be loyal and very people friendly. plus, there is often a wide range of behavior even in specific dog breeds.

Your example of the fact that humans don't necessarily follow their upbringing, especially an abusive one, is a really good one. on the not of parents who try to shape children "into their own image", it's something i have a deep disgust for, because it totally destroys a childs agency to explore their own interest, hobbies and strengths, as well as their intellectual and emotional agency.

I think motivations shift heavily based on a mix of a persons mindset, mood, circumstances and values. A deeply depressed person often has no interest in anything at all, for example. A person who is devalued in society, is much more likely to become depressed and have no motivation to do anything, but a person who is valued and is given opportunities to find their place in society is likely to develop a motivation to contribute. That's why we need a society that is based on human dignity and serving the advancement of humanity, and that provides everyone the opportunity to thrive, to become educated without restriction or 'paywalls', and to become the best versions of themselves. When people are provided these means, they can explore themselves, learn new skills and develop their own motivations.

Absolutely agree. It can work in a positive way also. Being antinatilist, I tend to look at young children with a sense of pity but I hope they will fair better in this world than I have.

However, I was considering a colleague of mine. They are a very optimistic, positive person. Whether that's due to nature or nurture, who knows? However, it struck me that their children will at least likely be getting the best shot at life. They may well inherit those positive genes but, they'll also be raised in a positive, encoraging manner I assume. I think one often simply reinforces the other. Again though, not always. A life can be so long. So many things can happen to change us.

 

[Jorvak]

Absolutely agree. It can work in a positive way also. Being antinatilist, I tend to look at young children with a sense of pity but I hope they will fair better in this world than I have.

However, I was considering a colleague of mine. They are a very optimistic, positive person. Whether that's due to nature or nurture, who knows? However, it struck me that their children will at least likely be getting the best shot at life. They may well inherit those positive genes but, they'll also be raised in a positive, encoraging manner I assume. I think one often simply reinforces the other. Again though, not always. A life can be so long. So many things can happen to change us.

an observation i've noted is that a lot of anti-natalist positions on this forum come down to the possibility that a child will experience bad parenting. I definitely understand why this is a somewhat regular position on SaSu.

My position is that i'm against bad and abusive parenting, and am very disgusted with how many parents treat their kids as objects that they can force their opinions, religion and interest on, treat them like a psychological, or sometimes physical punching bag. this is deeply wrong, and should be classified as parental abuse by any sane society.

I think if we sohuld be striving to create a culture that encourages the mentality of parenting based around parenting having a fundamental respect for their childs agency, and to advance kids on their own terms, to enable them to learn and question things critically, to not be coerced or pressured into accepting certain opinions, and to enable them to pursue their own intellectual interest and hobbies and to develop skills at a young age (that isn't just an elective), we can eat away greatly at many of the issues that cause so much child hood trauma that persist well into adult hood. it wont fix it all the time, but we should be striving for that.

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

Instincts are not innate, they are something that constantly evolve as people learn new things and have new experiences. Tempering instincts is not like releasing a pressure tank into a balloon. It means teaching people tools and knowledge to consider their experiences and the information they are exposed to more carefully. Uninformed instincts can be replaced by informed instincts. For example, when it comes to understanding reality, tools like Empiricism and the Scientific Method can be used in place of "feelings" about reality to try to learn how reality works. By learning and practicing these tools, you can foster superior intellectual instincts for figuring things out than our hunter-gatherer ancestors. It's not that hunter-gatherers were dumb, but they did not have the tools necessary to improve their knowledge on reality and hone their instincts in that way - they were constantly trying to survive after all.

When it comes to interpersonal behavior, People can be encouraged to learn how to respect other peoples and to treat people with dignity, fairness and compassion within a relative cultural context. Yes, emotion is involved in relationships, but varying rules for social engagement also exist at the same time to foster mutual respect between people. The more experiences a person learns for interacting with others, the more they can develop the emotional instincts necessary, and replace outdated ones. The more people become informed about how to properly behave, the more their instincts are informed for how relationships work and how to behave towards others. On the other hand, the more you use the tools of logic and science to understand specific aspects of reality, the more your investigative instincts develop, and outright replace uninformed ones.

Trying to use the totality of Human History to 'average out' some version of 'human nature' requires cutting out all of the nuance from history about cultural motivations for doing certain things. Human history is not one giant culture - they are not like a bunch of cells that make a singular body, but it involves a huge number of cultures interacting with each other throughout the ages. When it comes to history and specifically anthropology, you have to analyze different societies on a case by case basis. As an example, history is riddled with wars, but the way different cultures used and justified wars were starkly different from each other. Some cultures were bent on causing wars to grow empires, but there are plenty examples of cultures that tended to be more peaceful taking on a more defensive posture, and there were some that were virtually entirely peaceful until they were invaded, or have remained isolated from the world entirely. One can't just take the cultures that were much more warmongering and superimpose it on all other cultures that used war in a more defensive way or were entirely peaceful. Cultures that were once peaceful can become warmongering, and warmongering cultures can become peaceful, and this depends heavily on how conditions in their culture evolve. are the historical cultures that use war for defense really comparable to the cultures that used war for offense? I don't think so.

ultimately, You have to analyze how specific cultures justify doing certain things on a case by case basis. Lets take the Jomon people of Japan for example. For roughly 12 thousand years of Japanese history, the Jomon people experienced no strife between themselves. This only changed when the Yayoi People invaded japan roughly around 1000 BC. Because the Jomon had a peaceful culture, they had no need for weapons, and this made them vulnerable to the Yayoi. Modern Japanese people have most of their heritage from the Yaoi, but a significant chunk is the Jomon people as well. the Jomon did try to defend themselves, but is their defense really on the same level as a conquering force? that doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Instincts are innate, but agreed they are malleable. I concede that, to some degree, however only via suppression. They will display themselves in other ways, and I do believe that it is a perfect metaphor to say that it's similar to a balloon filling with water--it will either burst or leaks will sprout, and the instinct will leak out, still. But let's side table that.

The Yayoi simply had different instincts than the Jomon, okay. And who won out in the end? The aggressors. The predators. This is something you can extrapolate from all of human history. Humans are animals. Some humans are predators. Some humans are prey. As a whole, humans are predators. I think we can agree on that, given your examples. Given that humans are omnivores, as well. There aren't really any options other than those two. You have cows that graze, and you have lions that bite their necks, suffocate them, and then devour them. If we reverse-anthropomorphize humans, it's clear these two types of tendencies are shown as fundamental characteristics of the nautral world. The cycle of life.

Since our discussion revolved around communism, if you do have predator and prey humans--if that is an appropriate categorization; then, trying to force communism is trying to say that you can teach the predators to act as prey and give up their innate power and advantage. Everyone just share and care is not going to suit someone with the genetics to pillage and fight and war.

Do you know why Spain has the highest rates of anxiety in Europe? One theory is that since the brave, courageous conquistadors set out, they literally bred those genetics out of Spainards who remained in Spain, because such a large percentage of the population stayed behind.

So what do you get when you mix Aztec warriors with Spainard conquistadors with a penchant for conquest, blood, and decapitation? Are you going to teach them how to be nice gentle souls who should only just share and care?

The Scientific Method can be used in place of feelings, but establishing that for all of humanity via teaching requires complete control over the populace and the elimination of all other forms of belief. Which pretty much all belief structures have tried to do throughout history. That doesn't go well either.

 

[Skallagrim]

The old Norse sagas. Ever heard of them? If so, you probably have read Egill's saga.

There is one scene in particular that is pertinent to this question. Egill was taken hostage by a group of farmers in the Baltic region with a bunch of other vikings. Egill, being somewhat of a big chap, bit through his bonds and escaped, releasing the others as well.

They swiped a load of these people's goods, and were running off to the boats, when Egill stopped. He realised it would be immoral to run off without telling the farmers who stole their stuff, so he ran back to the place, set it on fire, shouted who he was and what he'd done, and killed anyone who tried to escape from the fire.

Because it was the *right* thing to do.

There are innate aspects of human nature - our need to couple with others, our bonds with our kids, anger bubbling up after too much time without food, a fear of strange noises in the dark, and these impact human behaviour.

But we are also guided by cultural norms and customs, and these change wildly with time and place. What's right, wrong, taboo, desirable, or even enjoyable can vary wildly by time and place, and this too governs human behaviour.

 

[quietism]

Nature-nurture is a farce.

Following a public lecture, a journalist approached the renowned psychologist Donald Hebb and asked for his opinion on which factor contributed more to the development of personality, nature or nurture. Hebb responded that to pose this question was akin to asking what contributed more to the area of a rectangle, the length or the width. Like all good urban myths, there are multiple versions of this story. The context changes somewhat, but Hebb's quote remains intact in its piercing brilliance. Forty some years later, we pace about in the same state of confusion, asking the same foolish question, armed with the impressive tools of a new millennium, but without the wisdom of Hebb.

This is, surprise surprise, from a paper 24 years ago.

Can you imagine, to expand on Hebb's metaphor, explaining to the public that the study of "rectangularity" comprises those who study "lengths" and others who are preoccupied with "widths?" The rectangle, someone might point out, is really an emergent property of length × width and cannot possibly be understood only in terms of one or the other. Hence, for all our knowledge concerning "lengths" and "widths," we would know little about actual rectangles. Ultimately, one would hope, individuals would emerge demanding an integrative approach that recognizes only the study of rectangles, dismissing the notion that anything meaningful can come from the study of "lengths" or "widths" alone. Such an advance would require no new tools, but rather a change in the way we think about rectangles. So, too, is it with "nature" and "nurture," for life does not emerge as a function of either. It is equally wrong-headed to assume that, oh yes, phenotype derives from both nature and nurture. This would be only to repeat the misunderstanding in kinder, gentler terms, as if biological and social scientists had shaken hands and then gone off into their own corners of the universe to study "lengths" or "widths." Indeed, both conclusions are derived from additive models of determinism where gene + environment = phenotype. Such models make no biological sense whatsoever. It is not nature or nurture. Nor is it nature and nurture. To paraphrase Richard Lewontin, life emerges only from the interaction between the two: There are no genetic factors that can be studied independently of the environment, and there are no environmental factors that function independently of the genome. Phenotype emerges only from the interaction of gene and environment. The search for main effects is a fool's errand. In the context of modern molecular biology, it is a quest that is without credibility.

And from Sapolsky:

Citing "gene/environment interactions" is a time-honored genetics cliché. My students roll their eyes when I mention them. I roll my eyes when I mention them. Eat your vegetables, floss your teeth, remember to say, "It's difficult to quantitatively assess the relative contributions of genes and environment to a particular trait when they interact." This suggests a radical conclusion: it's not meaningful to ask what a gene does, just what it does in a particular environment.

I will give sex differences as one very obvious example of this. There are remarkably small and few differences between the human male and female sex, and most of them can be flipped just through tweaking very modest hormonal balances which themselves are subject to gene/environment interactions. One paper I find pretty hilarious, surely you've heard of the rumor that a biological male and female orgasm is experienced differently, right? Well...

It has generally been assumed that a male's experience of orgasm is different from a female's experience of orgasm. In this study, a questionnaire consisting of 48 descriptions of orgasm (24 male and 24 female) was submitted to 70 judges. These professionals (obstetrician-gynecologists, psychologists, and medical students) were to sex-identify the descriptions to discover whether sex differences could be detected. The judges could not correctly identify the sex of the person describing an orgasm. Furthermore, none of the three professional groups represented in the sample of judges did better than any of the other groups. Male judges did no better than female judges and vice versa. These findings suggest that the experience of orgasm for males and females is essentially the same.

Yeah. What a study. In 1976, too... Rumors tend to completely disregard evidence.

I'd highly recommend these two books. The paper is pretty short too. I have much more I could say about this, but the books say it better than I could at the moment.

---

Vance, Ellen Belle, and Nathaniel N. Wagner. "Written Descriptions of Orgasm: A Study of Sex Differences." Archives of Sexual Behavior 5, no. 1 (January 1976): 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542242.
Meaney, Michael J. "Nature, Nurture, and the Disunity of Knowledge." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 935, no. 1 (May 2001): 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03470.x.
Moore, David S. The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature vs. Nurture." Owl Books ed. New York, NY: Freeman/Owl Books, 2003.
Sapolsky, Robert M. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. New York, New York: Penguin Press, 2017.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

IMO almost all beliefs behavior are taught by culture society experiences media other people

i changed a lot of my beliefs who hasn't?

what did you know at 1 day old , 2 months , a year old ? not much.

yeah there are instincts like hunger pain desire for food , thirst for water, need for rest and sleep and others but many of the things people have been taught are instincts imo are not

One example that many people have been taught is an instinct is wanting children. birthrates are decreasing rapidly and i don't feel any desire to have children like i do for eating food and drinking water.

I don't think the fear of Death is an instinct. i think at least 50% of the people here don't fear Death and some desire it here. i don't fear Death.

how many people know that a human is just 30 trillion cells . and that all life evolved from a single cell. and that the core of the first cell many processes like DNA , RNA, ribosomes, ATP , the genetic code were all in the first cell and in are inside every brain cell? we are that first cell , cells, chemical reactions, . .. how many people know this ? how many people internalized this to the point that it guides their worldview and actions : i haven't even iternalized it but some neural networks in my brain know this . how many people as % have internalized this way that they and all of us are going to die ? do they act that way ?

Books : A mind so rare, Merlin Donald . Merlin says the human mind is a hybrid biology and culture .

Book: Live wired , David Eagleman

Ever deeper honesty book

the Brain , David Eagle man

what did you know at 1 day old , 2 months , a year old ? not much. that brain was learning even at least 6 months after the sperm and egg formed the zygote , 3 months before birth. all this time the brain is trying to model the world and the self and consciousness.

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

an observation i've noted is that a lot of anti-natalist positions on this forum come down to the possibility that a child will experience bad parenting. I definitely understand why this is a somewhat regular position on SaSu.

My position is that i'm against bad and abusive parenting, and am very disgusted with how many parents treat their kids as objects that they can force their opinions, religion and interest on, treat them like a psychological, or sometimes physical punching bag. this is deeply wrong, and should be classified as parental abuse by any sane society.

I think if we sohuld be striving to create a culture that encourages the mentality of parenting based around parenting having a fundamental respect for their childs agency, and to advance kids on their own terms, to enable them to learn and question things critically, to not be coerced or pressured into accepting certain opinions, and to enable them to pursue their own intellectual interest and hobbies and to develop skills at a young age (that isn't just an elective), we can eat away greatly at many of the issues that cause so much child hood trauma that persist well into adult hood. it wont fix it all the time, but we should be striving for that.

And what if you and I have different ideas of what striving for the proper kind of parenting means? What if you and society differ?

War never changes. Humans don't change on any drastic level. You can get stuck in the weeds all day long, but the simple fact is that humans will always destroy anything of value.

 

[Jorvak]

Instincts are innate, but agreed they are malleable. I concede that, to some degree, however only via suppression. They will display themselves in other ways, and I do believe that it is a perfect metaphor to say that it's similar to a balloon filling with water--it will either burst or leaks will sprout, and the instinct will leak out, still. But let's side table that.

The Yayoi simply had different instincts than the Jomon, okay. And who won out in the end? The aggressors. The predators. This is something you can extrapolate from all of human history. Humans are animals. Some humans are predators. Some humans are prey. As a whole, humans are predators. I think we can agree on that, given your examples. Given that humans are omnivores, as well. There aren't really any options other than those two. You have cows that graze, and you have lions that bite their necks, suffocate them, and then devour them. If we reverse-anthropomorphize humans, it's clear these two types of tendencies are shown as fundamental characteristics of the nautral world. The cycle of life.

Since our discussion revolved around communism, if you do have predator and prey humans--if that is an appropriate categorization; then, trying to force communism is trying to say that you can teach the predators to act as prey and give up their innate power and advantage. Everyone just share and care is not going to suit someone with the genetics to pillage and fight and war.

Do you know why Spain has the highest rates of anxiety in Europe? One theory is that since the brave, courageous conquistadors set out, they literally bred those genetics out of Spainards who remained in Spain, because such a large percentage of the population stayed behind.

So what do you get when you mix Aztec warriors with Spainard conquistadors with a penchant for conquest, blood, and decapitation? Are you going to teach them how to be nice gentle souls who should only just share and care?

The Scientific Method can be used in place of feelings, but establishing that for all of humanity via teaching requires complete control over the populace and the elimination of all other forms of belief. Which pretty much all belief structures have tried to do throughout history. That doesn't go well either.

Im glad that you show a willingness to revise your views, however, the mechanic by which you suggest they are malleable, through "suppression", is still an incorrect one. In my argument in the quote box, i describe how Instincts are not "suppressed", but that they are replaced with better ones through a persons experiences, and the better ones can be honed through experience and knowledge. This is a different mechanic than suppression. This is why the "pressurized balloon" analogy does not work as a person learns new experiences to change their instincts and their views on things.

When you bring up the yayoi and the Jomon, i notice that you apply a fundamentally essentialist view of aggression. As though only aggression or predatory behavior is valid, but not a peaceful or defensive approach. This doesn't make a lot of sense. If a peaceful culture is destroyed by an aggressive faction, that doesn't invalidate their culture, or not make it a part of human history. But this ignores all of the cultures that successfully defended their homeland against invaders. the Pictish people and Germanic tribes defended against the roman empire. Defense is a perfectly valid tool. forming alliances and engaging in guerilla tactics are other valid tools. Why is it that only the predatory behavior of lions, for example, is considered the 'best' survival mechanism, but not being a huge wildebeast that can kick and kill lions? If anything, prey animals tend to survive in much greater numbers than predators, and can become big enough to kill predators with ease, forcing predators to only target the young of a species. for many species, there are plenty of other valid survival mechanisms, such as running away, hiding, and even poisoning predators. Considering that in your earlier arguments you brought up the animal kingdom as though it is how human society should be organized, it's pretty strange that only the predators are idolized, but that all of the survival mechanisms of prey animals, even big ones that could destroy predators, are ignored and dismissed. It doesn't make a lot of sense that the survival mechanisms of predators in particular is deemed as the 'epitome' of survival and a model for human society. I believe that this essentialist view of 'aggression' as a survival mechanism is coloring your view about not just the animal kingdom, but stretched to determine how human society should be organized, when inter-conflict between humans does not match the predator-prey dynamics found in nature. it's a double standard contained in one of the core premises of your thinking that leads to more issues the higher up you go.

Human behavior is not about being "innately violent", it is about adapting to circumstances, which sometimes involves violence in some era's and sometimes involve peaceful relations and defensive postures in others. So no, i don't agree with the notion that "some humans are prey and some are predators. This is a very simplistic of human history and eliminates all of the nuance of cultural evolution. human behavior is fundamentally flexible to circumstance. a peaceful culture can become very militant, and a very militant culture can become more peaceful, and this all depends on the conditions they exist in within a given era. there is no specific historical circumstance that exist at all times, that dictates how humans should behave. it's also very flawed to impose the logic of predator-prey dynamics from the animal kingdom to make assertions about human history and how human society should be organized. A peaceful people can learn to adopt defensive techniques when faced with a threat, and an aggressive culture could be forced to become more peaceful when faced with collapse, or it outright collapses. If a culture can fend off an aggressor, or if a huge empire collapses, why didn't the aggression involved in the oppression of subjects stop their collapse? All empires in history have collapsed eventually, usually due to a large mix of internal and external pressures. Epitomizing imperialism as a "good" mechanism by focusing on successful conquest, is not just a highly selective view of history, but also it assumes its "good" purely based on its success in dominating others. it doesn't demonstrate why this is a "good" thing. If a system of ethics was based purely on how successful malicious actions can benefit of a single group, such as imperialism, i and most others would immediately reject it, because ethics aren't about the success of a "dominant group", but it should be about the success of all groups, and to eliminate harm and benefit all of humanity on the whole.

I believe you have a strong misunderstanding about communism. Why do you apply 'force' to only communism, but not to a "predator" culture that asserts dominance over another people?. Why is it 'force' when a culture defends themselves against an aggressor, but it's not 'force', for the aggressor to invade? this is very peculiar, and demonstrates a double standard. Communism is about eliminating systems of oppression, class domination and imperialism, by abolishing class dominance over the political and economic system, abolishing all forms of prejudice, establishing common ownership of the means of production (which is different from personal possessions by the way), gearing society to serve the common interest of the people and humanity, and establishing a system of participatory democracy so that its regular people that control society for the good of all, not the good of a class or dominant group. I very much acknowledge that the process of accomplishing this does require force against the capitalist system, but the fact is that the capitalist system depends on force to maintain itself, so that a specific class can continue to benefit by having control of the political and economic system. i simply believe we have to abolish this oppressive arrangement that serves primarily the dominant class interest, and have something that serves everyone without class. The point is though, is that we should be striving for the good of humanity. the logic of "might makes right" and "predators above prey" might sound good to a sociopath who cares about the interest of themselves or a specific in-group - (not to say you are one), but it's not a good system for humanity, especially in the era where aggressive behavior could easily lead to our extinction.

I'm not buying the claim that Spain has 'high anxiety' because of a genetic breeding program. anxiety is caused by a very wide range of factors, and having social issues in a society going unaddressed for a long period of time, is at the top of that. Anxiety in society fluctuates according to conditions in society and whether people have a stable or unstable life in society. Neither the Spanish or Aztecs have an "innate" penchant for violence. portions of their populations are taught to be militant, so the conquistadors and Aztec warriors behaved in a militant fashion due primarily to their training and combat experiences.

Your suggestion that the scientific method "requires force" and "total control of the population" to be adopted is completely inaccurate. there are plenty of religious people who have prioritized science in their understanding of reality. This is called compartmentalization. I find your suggestion that "science requires force" to advance itself as being very strange, considering the historical fact that various religions throughout history have had to use total control to enforce religious norms across society. I believe your view of this is also rooted in a deep misunderstanding of science. Science by its very premises requires a consideration and exploration of many different possible hypothesis to discover reality. It's premised fundamentally on not forming definitive conclusions about things that have not yet been investigated enough. And even when a rough conclusion has been made that is usually accurate, the task then becomes to constantly find new evidence to revise models, abandon old conclusions and replace them with a more accurate understanding. we know for instance that both Newtons physics, and Einsteins physics are WRONG. that doesn't mean that they aren't close to the truth the vast majority of the time, but they fall apart in certain cases - in newtons case it doesn't account for relativity, in Einsteins case it doesn't account for quantum mechanics. They are still incredibly useful for STEM fields, and still very much taught, but they are not completely correct versions of reality and every scientist knows this. So science is about a constant process of gathering empirical data, forming many different possibilities to explain things, and testing to see which one is most accurate, and constantly revising old opinions. This is the complete opposite of a mentality of "forcing a specific set of opinions", because science demands constantly questioning everything and challenging assumptions through evidence and scrutiny.

Nature-nurture is a farce.

Following a public lecture, a journalist approached the renowned psychologist Donald Hebb and asked for his opinion on which factor contributed more to the development of personality, nature or nurture. Hebb responded that to pose this question was akin to asking what contributed more to the area of a rectangle, the length or the width. Like all good urban myths, there are multiple versions of this story. The context changes somewhat, but Hebb's quote remains intact in its piercing brilliance. Forty some years later, we pace about in the same state of confusion, asking the same foolish question, armed with the impressive tools of a new millennium, but without the wisdom of Hebb.

This is, surprise surprise, from a paper 24 years ago.

Can you imagine, to expand on Hebb's metaphor, explaining to the public that the study of "rectangularity" comprises those who study "lengths" and others who are preoccupied with "widths?" The rectangle, someone might point out, is really an emergent property of length × width and cannot possibly be understood only in terms of one or the other. Hence, for all our knowledge concerning "lengths" and "widths," we would know little about actual rectangles. Ultimately, one would hope, individuals would emerge demanding an integrative approach that recognizes only the study of rectangles, dismissing the notion that anything meaningful can come from the study of "lengths" or "widths" alone. Such an advance would require no new tools, but rather a change in the way we think about rectangles. So, too, is it with "nature" and "nurture," for life does not emerge as a function of either. It is equally wrong-headed to assume that, oh yes, phenotype derives from both nature and nurture. This would be only to repeat the misunderstanding in kinder, gentler terms, as if biological and social scientists had shaken hands and then gone off into their own corners of the universe to study "lengths" or "widths." Indeed, both conclusions are derived from additive models of determinism where gene + environment = phenotype. Such models make no biological sense whatsoever. It is not nature or nurture. Nor is it nature and nurture. To paraphrase Richard Lewontin, life emerges only from the interaction between the two: There are no genetic factors that can be studied independently of the environment, and there are no environmental factors that function independently of the genome. Phenotype emerges only from the interaction of gene and environment. The search for main effects is a fool's errand. In the context of modern molecular biology, it is a quest that is without credibility.

And from Sapolsky:

Citing "gene/environment interactions" is a time-honored genetics cliché. My students roll their eyes when I mention them. I roll my eyes when I mention them. Eat your vegetables, floss your teeth, remember to say, "It's difficult to quantitatively assess the relative contributions of genes and environment to a particular trait when they interact." This suggests a radical conclusion: it's not meaningful to ask what a gene does, just what it does in a particular environment.

I will give sex differences as one very obvious example of this. There are remarkably small and few differences between the human male and female sex, and most of them can be flipped just through tweaking very modest hormonal balances which themselves are subject to gene/environment interactions. One paper I find pretty hilarious, surely you've heard of the rumor that a biological male and female orgasm is experienced differently, right? Well...

It has generally been assumed that a male's experience of orgasm is different from a female's experience of orgasm. In this study, a questionnaire consisting of 48 descriptions of orgasm (24 male and 24 female) was submitted to 70 judges. These professionals (obstetrician-gynecologists, psychologists, and medical students) were to sex-identify the descriptions to discover whether sex differences could be detected. The judges could not correctly identify the sex of the person describing an orgasm. Furthermore, none of the three professional groups represented in the sample of judges did better than any of the other groups. Male judges did no better than female judges and vice versa. These findings suggest that the experience of orgasm for males and females is essentially the same.

Yeah. What a study. In 1976, too... Rumors tend to completely disregard evidence.

I'd highly recommend these two books. The paper is pretty short too. I have much more I could say about this, but the books say it better than I could at the moment.

---

Vance, Ellen Belle, and Nathaniel N. Wagner. "Written Descriptions of Orgasm: A Study of Sex Differences." Archives of Sexual Behavior 5, no. 1 (January 1976): 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542242.
Meaney, Michael J. "Nature, Nurture, and the Disunity of Knowledge." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 935, no. 1 (May 2001): 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03470.x.
Moore, David S. The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature vs. Nurture." Owl Books ed. New York, NY: Freeman/Owl Books, 2003.
Sapolsky, Robert M. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. New York, New York: Penguin Press, 2017.

Thanks for your really detailed posting complete with quotes and sources, I admire Robert Sapolsky's work!

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

Fair en

Im glad that you show a willingness to revise your views, however, the mechanic by which you suggest they are malleable, through "suppression", is still an incorrect one. In my argument in the quote box, i describe how Instincts are not "suppressed", but that they are replaced with better ones through a persons experiences, and the better ones can be honed through experience and knowledge. This is a different mechanic than suppression. This is why the "pressurized balloon" analogy does not work as a person learns new experiences to change their instincts and their views on things.

When you bring up the yayoi and the Jomon, i notice that you apply a fundamentally essentialist view of aggression. As though only aggression or predatory behavior is valid, but not a peaceful or defensive approach. This doesn't make a lot of sense. If a peaceful culture is destroyed by an aggressive faction, that doesn't invalidate their culture, or not make it a part of human history. But this ignores all of the cultures that successfully defended their homeland against invaders. the Pictish people and Germanic tribes defended against the roman empire. Defense is a perfectly valid tool. forming alliances and engaging in guerilla tactics are other valid tools. Why is it that only the predatory behavior of lions, for example, is considered the 'best' survival mechanism, but not being a huge wildebeast that can kick and kill lions? If anything, prey animals tend to survive in much greater numbers than predators, and can become big enough to kill predators with ease, forcing predators to only target the young of a species. for many species, there are plenty of other valid survival mechanisms, such as running away, hiding, and even poisoning predators. Considering that in your earlier arguments you brought up the animal kingdom as though it is how human society should be organized, it's pretty strange that only the predators are idolized, but that all of the survival mechanisms of prey animals, even big ones that could destroy predators, are ignored and dismissed. It doesn't make a lot of sense that the survival mechanisms of predators in particular is deemed as the 'epitome' of survival and a model for human society. I believe that this essentialist view of 'aggression' as a survival mechanism is coloring your view about not just the animal kingdom, but stretched to determine how human society should be organized, when inter-conflict between humans does not match the predator-prey dynamics found in nature. it's a double standard contained in one of the core premises of your thinking that leads to more issues the higher up you go.

Human behavior is not about being "innately violent", it is about adapting to circumstances, which sometimes involves violence in some era's and sometimes involve peaceful relations and defensive postures in others. So no, i don't agree with the notion that "some humans are prey and some are predators. This is a very simplistic of human history and eliminates all of the nuance of cultural evolution. human behavior is fundamentally flexible to circumstance. a peaceful culture can become very militant, and a very militant culture can become more peaceful, and this all depends on the conditions they exist in within a given era. there is no specific historical circumstance that exist at all times, that dictates how humans should behave. it's also very flawed to impose the logic of predator-prey dynamics from the animal kingdom to make assertions about human history and how human society should be organized. A peaceful people can learn to adopt defensive techniques when faced with a threat, and an aggressive culture could be forced to become more peaceful when faced with collapse, or it outright collapses. If a culture can fend off an aggressor, or if a huge empire collapses, why didn't the aggression involved in the oppression of subjects stop their collapse? All empires in history have collapsed eventually, usually due to a large mix of internal and external pressures. Epitomizing imperialism as a "good" mechanism by focusing on successful conquest, is not just a highly selective view of history, but also it assumes its "good" purely based on its success in dominating others. it doesn't demonstrate why this is a "good" thing. If a system of ethics was based purely on how successful malicious actions can benefit of a single group, such as imperialism, i and most others would immediately reject it, because ethics (Who said anything about ethics?) aren't about the success of a "dominant group", but it should be about the success of all groups, and to eliminate harm and benefit all of humanity on the whole. (So who is going to tell the arabs to stop raping kids? What you're saying is all fine and dandy. And I already agreed that idealistically I would totally support everything you're saying. However, HOW IS THIS PRACTICAL IN THE LEAST?"

It's like you're saying, "If I was God, this is how it would be." But that is not how it is. How are you going to convince all these people with differing cultures--some delving into cannibalism as their central theme in their culture, or child abuse, etc, etc into doing it exactly the way you want?"

I believe you have a strong misunderstanding about communism. Why do you apply 'force' to only communism, but not to a "predator" culture that asserts dominance over another people?. Why is it 'force' when a culture defends themselves against an aggressor, but it's not 'force', for the aggressor to invade? this is very peculiar, and demonstrates a double standard. Communism is about eliminating systems of oppression, class domination and imperialism, by abolishing class dominance over the political and economic system, abolishing all forms of prejudice (Sounds great. Has it worked ever?), establishing common ownership of the means of production (which is different from personal possessions by the way), gearing society to serve the common interest of the people and humanity, and establishing a system of participatory democracy so that its regular people that control society for the good of all, not the good of a class or dominant group. I very much acknowledge that the process of accomplishing this does require force against the capitalist system, but the fact is that the capitalist system depends on force to maintain itself, so that a specific class can continue to benefit by having control of the political and economic system. (Now that's just scary, bolshevik). i simply believe we have to abolish this oppressive arrangement that serves primarily the dominant class interest, and have something that serves everyone without class (Poverty rates across the world have been steadily declining for the past 50 years). The point is though, is that we should be striving for the good of humanity. the logic of "might makes right" and "predators above prey" might sound good to a sociopath who cares about the interest of themselves or a specific in-group - (not to say you are one), but it's not a good system for humanity, especially in the era where aggressive behavior could easily lead to our extinction. (Ahhh yes, the good old "Oppression is bad, kill them all, then force them to do it our way. "Doesn't sound the same at all, even though you admitted it is, yourself.)

I'm not buying the claim that Spain has 'high anxiety' because of a genetic breeding program. anxiety is caused by a very wide range of factors, and having social issues in a society going unaddressed for a long period of time, is at the top of that. Anxiety in society fluctuates according to conditions in society and whether people have a stable or unstable life in society. Neither the Spanish or Aztecs have an "innate" penchant for violence. portions of their populations are taught to be militant, so the conquistadors and Aztec warriors behaved in a militant fashion due primarily to their training and combat experiences.

Your suggestion that the scientific method "requires force" and "total control of the population" to be adopted is completely inaccurate. there are plenty of religious people who have prioritized science in their understanding of reality. This is called compartmentalization. I find your suggestion that "science requires force" to advance itself as being very strange, considering the historical fact that various religions throughout history have had to use total control to enforce religious norms across society. I believe your view of this is also rooted in a deep misunderstanding of science. Science by its very premises requires a consideration and exploration of many different possible hypothesis to discover reality. It's premised fundamentally on not forming definitive conclusions about things that have not yet been investigated enough. And even when a rough conclusion has been made that is usually accurate, the task then becomes to constantly find new evidence to revise models, abandon old conclusions and replace them with a more accurate understanding. we know for instance that both Newtons physics, and Einsteins physics are WRONG. (Yes. I know what science is, thanks). that doesn't mean that they aren't close to the truth the vast majority of the time, but they fall apart in certain cases - in newtons case it doesn't account for relativity, in Einsteins case it doesn't account for quantum mechanics. They are still incredibly useful for STEM fields, and still very much taught, but they are not completely correct versions of reality and every scientist knows this. So science is about a constant process of gathering empirical data, forming many different possibilities to explain things, and testing to see which one is most accurate, and constantly revising old opinions. (Again, thanks) This is the complete opposite of a mentality of "forcing a specific set of opinions", because science demands constantly questioning everything and challenging assumptions through evidence and scrutiny. (I believe you misunderstood, again, my original points, but this was really long, no offense, so I really don't feel like going back to see what my original wording was, but thank you for writing all this.)

Okay. I concede the instinct point then. I was wrong.

I never said defense wasn't a valid tool. I feel like you're creating a lot of strawman arguments. Sure. It's a valid tool. Whether it is effective or not is the key.

"Considering that in your earlier arguments you brought up the animal kingdom as though it is how human society should be organized" Again. Strawman. Or just a misinterpretation. I never said *should*. I said *is*. I also went over how what should be is often not.

I'm just going to start bolding and underlining the areas in your quote where you've made assumptions or extrapolations about my viewpoints. I don't know if these are intentional snuck premises to underhandedly undermine my arguments, strawmen, or just misinterpretations. Potentially misinterpretations due to my wording needing to be better, idk.

"inter-conflict between humans does not match the predator-prey dynamics found in nature"
Please explain a circumstance in which inter-conflict between humans does not match predator-prey dynamic. Because that is literally all I see of humans.

I'll italicize areas in your comment that confuse me or I disagree with. And I'll bold and parenthesis-close comments.

"Human behavior is not about being "innately violent", it is about adapting to circumstances, which sometimes involves violence in some era's and sometimes involve peaceful relations and defensive postures in others"
How long has any country gone without being in a war? I know for America it is always less than 10 years, leading me to believe that peace is simply a preparation for war. Also. These "peaceful eras" I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about. It's just varying levels of aggression. There is no such thing as peace. Even cooperation is conflict and aggression.

Humans are animals. Thinking humans aren't animals is what is flawed thinking.

At this point I'm wondering if you're even debating me at all. It seems like you really have just constructed a grouping of ideas to rally against which have nothing to do with my positions. I'm quite confused, in fact.

I've bolded and italicized the points I find interesting.

So here, "So no, i don't agree with the notion that "some humans are prey and some are predators." you've made a lot of statements on how predators and prey work, but you haven't really addressed how this applies to humans. How are some humans not fitting in the category of either prey or predator? Exactly what other category is there?

Flexible yes, so I'll adjust my statements to say humans predispositions have a high likelihood of coming to the surface, and that has been evidenced throughout history in the form of near-constant warfare.

My dude. So many strawmen

 

[Jorvak]

Fair en

Okay. I concede the instinct point then. I was wrong.

I never said defense wasn't a valid tool. I feel like you're creating a lot of strawman arguments. Sure. It's a valid tool. Whether it is effective or not is the key.

"Considering that in your earlier arguments you brought up the animal kingdom as though it is how human society should be organized" Again. Strawman. Or just a misinterpretation. I never said *should*. I said *is*. I also went over how what should be is often not.

I'm just going to start bolding and underlining the areas in your quote where you've made assumptions or extrapolations about my viewpoints. I don't know if these are intentional snuck premises to underhandedly undermine my arguments, strawmen, or just misinterpretations. Potentially misinterpretations due to my wording needing to be better, idk.

"inter-conflict between humans does not match the predator-prey dynamics found in nature"
Please explain a circumstance in which inter-conflict between humans does not match predator-prey dynamic. Because that is literally all I see of humans.

I'll italicize areas in your comment that confuse me or I disagree with. And I'll bold and parenthesis-close comments.

"Human behavior is not about being "innately violent", it is about adapting to circumstances, which sometimes involves violence in some era's and sometimes involve peaceful relations and defensive postures in others"
How long has any country gone without being in a war? I know for America it is always less than 10 years, leading me to believe that peace is simply a preparation for war. Also. These "peaceful eras" I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about. It's just varying levels of aggression. There is no such thing as peace. Even cooperation is conflict and aggression.

Humans are animals. Thinking humans aren't animals is what is flawed thinking.

At this point I'm wondering if you're even debating me at all. It seems like you really have just constructed a grouping of ideas to rally against which have nothing to do with my positions. I'm quite confused, in fact.

I've bolded and italicized the points I find interesting.

So here, "So no, i don't agree with the notion that "some humans are prey and some are predators." you've made a lot of statements on how predators and prey work, but you haven't really addressed how this applies to humans. How are some humans not fitting in the category of either prey or predator? Exactly what other category is there?

Flexible yes, so I'll adjust my statements to say humans predispositions have a high likelihood of coming to the surface, and that has been evidenced throughout history in the form of near-constant warfare.

My dude. So many strawmen I very much acknowledge that the process of accomplishing this does require force against the capitalist system, but the fact is that the capitalist system depends on force to maintain itself, so that a specific class can continue to benefit by having control of the political and economic system.

I have a respect the fact that you are willing to revise your views to some degree. Learning is a constant process, and i get that the views i express are a lot to digest for people who have thought about things in a very different framework of thought. I will definitely get back to you eventually about some of the other things you brought up. It takes humility to publicly revise your views like that.

When i have the time and energy to do so, I'll expand on or clarify all the other points you found confusing.

If there is one thing i want to address for the time being it's this

" I very much acknowledge that the process of accomplishing this does require force against the capitalist system, but the fact is that the capitalist system depends on force to maintain itself, so that a specific class can continue to benefit by having control of the political and economic system. (Now that's just scary, "

This reveals an extreme double standard. why is violence against capitalism "scary", but not the violence of capitalism to maintain itself? Capitalism is rooted in a history of Colonialism, genocides, slavery and Imperialism to sustain itself, and depends on constantly subjugating populations around the world to corporate interest and forcing corporate controlled political systems unto populations, You don't find that scary? Why is advocating for violence against this violence only scare to you, but not the other way around? You shirk at revolution against this system, but accept the violence that it relies on. I think that's a scary mentality if anything. We should be fighting against unjust systems of oppression because its the right thing to do.

EDIT: Often times as i'm addressing a persons viewpoint, i consider what other things that viewpoint would 'justify' and i will preemptively address those points as well, because it would logically flow from the other original point. It's not that you necessarily hold some of the things i addressed, it's that I'm trying to be thorough and address the viewpoints and their logical extensions thoroughly, and everything that the originally stated viewpoint would logically justify (assuming its true). Doing anything less would only be addressing your arguments piecemeal, instead of addressing the premise of your arguments and their logical conclusions, which is what i focus on.

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

I have a respect the fact that you are willing to revise your views to some degree. Learning is a constant process, and i get that the views i express are a lot to digest for people who have thought about things in a very different framework of thought. I will definitely get back to you eventually about some of the other things you brought up. It takes humility to publicly revise your views like that.

When i have the time and energy to do so, I'll expand on or clarify all the other points you found confusing.

If there is one thing i want to address for the time being it's this

" I very much acknowledge that the process of accomplishing this does require force against the capitalist system, but the fact is that the capitalist system depends on force to maintain itself, so that a specific class can continue to benefit by having control of the political and economic system. (Now that's just scary, "

This reveals an extreme double standard. why is violence against capitalism "scary", but not the violence of capitalism to maintain itself? Capitalism is rooted in a history of Colonialism, genocides, slavery and Imperialism to sustain itself, and depends on constantly subjugating populations around the world to corporate interest and forcing corporate controlled political systems unto populations, You don't find that scary? Why is advocating for violence against this violence only scare to you, but not the other way around? You shirk at revolution against this system, but accept the violence that it relies on. I think that's a scary mentality if anything. We should be fighting against unjust systems of oppression because its the right thing to do.

Both are scary, but one is more scary.

I'm anti-violence in general. I believe it's better to change systems peacefully from the inside through gradual change. Most times you try to force change, it also tends to not go very well. And you kill a lot of people either way, but in one way you kill a lot more people; you open up the power vacuum to be stolen by an authoritarian who could be even worse once they get a taste of the power they wield (i.e. Stalin), and not to mention you're basically starting over from scratch, meaning you'll probably make the exact same mistakes (or similar mistakes from the reverse side) that the previous regime did.

Put it this way:

If your claim is that the current system kills a lot of people, your solution is to kill more people, so you eventually (maybe) stop the killing. Doesn't make sense. Even if you think some paradise is going to come after that, you have no guarantee of that. You're just killing senselessly, if you don't actually end up achieving a benefit to the populace. So you just ended up making things 1,000x worse.

Gradual change sticks longer, imo, and avoids all immorality caused by revolutionary murder. In this case even if there is killing or oppression present, you're not adding to it.

 

[Jorvak]

Both are scary, but one is more scary.

I'm anti-violence in general. I believe it's better to change systems peacefully from the inside through gradual change. Most times you try to force change, it also tends to not go very well. And you kill a lot of people either way, but in one way you kill a lot more people; you open up the power vacuum to be stolen by an authoritarian who could be even worse once they get a taste of the power they wield (i.e. Stalin), and not to mention you're basically starting over from scratch, meaning you'll probably make the exact same mistakes (or similar mistakes from the reverse side) that the previous regime did.

Put it this way:

If your claim is that the current system kills a lot of people, your solution is to kill more people, so you eventually (maybe) stop the killing. Doesn't make sense. Even if you think some paradise is going to come after that, you have no guarantee of that. You're just killing senselessly, if you don't actually end up achieving a benefit to the populace. So you just ended up making things 1,000x worse.

Gradual change sticks longer, imo, and avoids all immorality caused by revolutionary murder. In this case even if there is killing or oppression present, you're not adding to it.

I really want to get back to you on this in great detail, i just lack the energy to produce a full response to you. I really don't want you to leave you thinking i have animosity to you, even though we still have some stark disagreements on various things. I think you demonstrate you are willing to learn on things.

When i do get back to you, i want to provide a response with good resources so that you can also learn from some of the same info i have over the decades, which includes books by historians and political scientist, and point out specific parts which could provide some insight into how capitalism functions and why reformist politics simply wont solve the fact that capitalism depends on imperialism and reproducing reactionary politics. I honestly just lack the energy to do this now. I hope you understand.

I suppose a couple of books i can leave you with for now are:

"The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism" (published 2022)

"King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa" (published 1999)

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

I really want to get back to you on this in great detail, i just lack the energy to produce a full response to you. I really don't want you to leave you thinking i have animosity to you, even though we still have some stark disagreements on various things. I think you demonstrate you are willing to learn on things.

When i do get back to you, i want to provide a response with good resources so that you can also learn from some of the same info i have over the decades, which includes books by historians and political scientist, and point out specific parts which could provide some insight into how capitalism functions and why reformist politics simply wont solve the fact that capitalism depends on imperialism and reproducing reactionary politics. I honestly just lack the energy to do this now. I hope you understand.

I suppose a couple of books i can leave you with for now are:

"The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism" (published 2022)

"King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa" (published 1999)

It's okay. Don't push yourself. I don't think that you have animosity towards me. Disagreement is the cornerstone of growth.

I do demonstrate such. But I'll be dead soon. Not really looking to read books on governing and economics in my last days, no offense.

Likewise, I can trade you, if you have more time than me:
"The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1973)"

"Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction" by Jack A. Goldstone (2014)"

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

It's okay. Don't push yourself. I don't think that you have animosity towards me. Disagreement is the cornerstone of growth.

I do demonstrate such. But I'll be dead soon. Not really looking to read books on governing and economics in my last days, no offense.

Likewise, I can trade you, if you have more time than me:
"The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1973)"

"Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction" by Jack A. Goldstone (2014)"

@SchrodingerIsDed it's ok if you don't do DMs or PMs.

but if you can or have time could you DM me , mainly about SN sources , but also some philosophical political things on this thread and others agreeing not debating confirming , .

I tried to PM DM you but you must have turned them off? so i understand if you don't want to PM.

i know the DMC SN source, the YT source, the PC source, the CS source but i don't know if these are reliable or legitamite .

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

@SchrodingerIsDed it's ok if you don't do DMs or PMs.

but if you can or have time could you DM me , mainly about SN sources , but also some philosophical political things on this thread and others agreeing not debating confirming , .

I tried to PM DM you but you must have turned them off? so i understand if you don't want to PM.

i know the DMC SN source, the YT source, the PC source, the CS source but i don't know if these are reliable or legitamite .

I don't have a source. I thought I did, but they turned out to be bunk. Sorry mate. I'm still looking myself. And yeah, I prefer to just chat in public. I have nothing to hide or be private with anymore. At least not on the forum, so I don't PM. We can post in the political forum if you like.