Science overturns view of humans as naturally ‘nasty’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] If you take a whole lot of completely normal people and give them a territory to inhabit, they will together form into a greedy sociopath with its own anthem.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;34801179][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo[/media][/QUOTE] The first half of the video already speaks the truth about.. everything. It's also on Youtube, thus a lot of people can see it, but still little to no effort is made to make that human-unity-prognosis to be true.

hahah, we aren't brutish, aggressive, and competitive? Then why do we start wars with each other continually, suck up resources with almost no regard as what to do when we run out of non-renewable fuel sources. Most people are individualistic, and are aggressive, this study doesn't disprove anything. Too bad we can't at least stop fighting each other.

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] You're completely mixing things up there in a misguided way... Individuals aren't the nasty ones, it's society in general that's nasty. Individuals have their reasons for being dicks, society, however, has no excuse. That's not to say individuals can't be assholes, there's tons of them. But most of them are smart, strong, and able to do great things. [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;34803750]hahah, we aren't brutish, aggressive, and competitive? Then why do we start wars with each other continually, suck up resources with almost no regard as what to do when we run out of non-renewable fuel sources. Most people are individualistic, and are aggressive, this study doesn't disprove anything. Too bad we can't at least stop fighting each other.[/QUOTE] See above. also, we fight wars because we feel the need to protect what we love. The ones that start the wars are the old men who sit at home, smoking cigars and being safe while we fight for them. And there are positive reasons to be aggressive as well.

Being a naturally aggressive species has it's pros. If we happen to be engaged in warfare with something of extraterrestrial origin we'll at least be known as a bunch of fighters rather than cowards.

Ok well we might not be nasty in that way, but I've taken enough biology classes to know that we, like all organisms, are all naturally sweaty, hairy, shit-filled blobs of fat and tissue, so we are in fact very nasty, which is what I thought the title meant.

Yeah no. I think a portion of humans have begun to move away from their natural instincts of aggression, control, competition, and what not... but as a whole no. We are still very much in the early stages of our evolution from the ape. Its not until we can agree to unify completely and work towards large common goals that better our species and our world that we will become in any way less like our ape brothern. I'll quote a doctor i once met," we are still very much cavemen and apes, all weve managed to do basically is find ways to harness what's around us to use as tools, ie. electricity and such. With more then half of the world living in poverty we are hypocritical to think that we are in fact 'intelligent'. If we were wed have found a way to raise the quality of life for our species instead of being individualistic, which in turn makes us no better then any other species. Life isn't about you, or him... it's about the us and the we. In 300 years no one will remember you, but if you can do something that pushes our species in the right direction, then youve done your job. Your purpose is to reproduce a better being then yourself, yet everyone could care less about anyone but themselves." I paraphrazed that but yeah, who ever wrote this article is not thinking on a larger scale and is way to optimistic.

The whole "humans suck" angle of things pimped-out by environmentalist films, religious bullshit and works depicting peaceful higher-tier alien is such a load of crap. Humans are intelligent social animals with a powerful sense of empathy. We are prone to reptile-brain instincts of self-interest and self-preservation that comes at odds with this, but I have a serious doubt that any sufficiently evolved species would turn out very different. The selfish, alpha-male instincts of a few have the potential to affect masses, and the development of the children of the masses. Misguided childhood education can really screw someone up without even being given a chance. But make no mistake, nobody comes into this world desiring anything but good, not unless there is something seriously, mentally wrong with them. A normal human being wishes the best for everyone, but might be given misguided ideas on what the objective "best" way is. This is why in stories of fiction, most every experienced writer will pan and even mock the notion of a character motivated by "being evil". Because there's no such damn THING as being motivated by "evil". Any act made in such repugnance that we may call it "evil" has either a strong, misguided or culturally skewed motivation backing it, usually a complex issue that can't normally be boiled down to, "he's an evil fucking asshole: the end." Having seen plenty of examples of works of fiction depicting an intelligent alien species or lost tribe or whatever criticizing humans for shit like pollution, war and all the bad things we drape around our own necks like a dead albatross, because THEY supposedly have, (and have apparently ALWAYS had) a Utopian pluralist society... I call bullshit. Any advanced, likely peaceful alien society out there in the void is going to have a complex and similar series of chronicles to its name. We all begin as animals, however much higher we climb. There was always going to be war, there was always going to be selfishness, we were always going to pollute our world with our inefficient early-generation technologies as we learned how shit worked. And any aliens out there will have similar campfire stories. But even if all that doesn't change your mind about how "not our fault" the baser-side of humanity is, do consider how fucked-up our evolution was. Our pre-Australopithecine ancestors were effectively tree-dwelling creatures that got effectively dumped on the ground in Africa, possibly after a drastic environmental event made the trees untenable for living. On the ground, this species was at a severe disadvantage, much as we are today. Evolution eventually made us into spectacular long-distance runners, but back then we didn't even have that. What animal can't outrun us? What use is a hand against a claw? The first ten generations of this species must have been an exercise in crippling fear. Fear is what defines humanity the most, aside from its benchmark intellect. In a population of the slow and feeble, our pre-human ancestors were likely massacred once the fully ground-adapted predators realized we were an easy meal. The only ones who survived to pass on their genes were the ones who dropped their guard the least, but who does that? The confident? The nervous? ...or the paranoid? And of course, we didn't have much in the way of nocturnal vision either. Do you ever wonder why, as a child or even as an adult, you stare into dark, black corners with that deep, penetrating chill in your very bones? We all unlearn our fear of the dark, at least partially, but it was something we evolved to survive. At night, when the beasts were on the prowl, what were we to do in the blackness? Yet further, the ones who survived to pass on their genes were the ones who saw danger in EVERY shadow, even the ones they'd already checked. When you never know if the beast is there, you have to feel that it always is. We evolved... paranoid. We humans must be the most frightened animal on the planet. It's no surprise that less imaginative animals see with better eyes, for what danger there really is, while, when we humans came along, we'd learned to see as many dangers as we could imagine with our inferior eyes shut. Fear coupled with vast intelligence is a potent thing. Why do you imagine we invented religion? Humans always looked to the sky for the answers. Perhaps that's down to our intelligence. There must have been a sense that the slow-shifting patterns in the sky all meant SOMETHING, they HAD to mean SOMETHING... But no matter what god the people prayed to, no matter how diligently, adults and children just kept dying like before. What did we do to deserve the horrors we encountered? To be eaten alive, to starve, to fall deathly sick, etc? Is there something after death? Which god is in charge of that? Which is the most powerful god? What do the gods want? Why are they SO cruel? The cruelty of the gods was obviously so far beyond human understanding. And that's how things stayed, pretty much... for 100, to 200 thousand years... But of our own accord we've come so far, since 2 and a half thousand years ago, Thales became the first human to successfully predict a solar eclipse. In that moment, we learned we didn't have to be afraid anymore. Learning about the world, understanding it, could free us from our deepest instinctive fears. Knowledge DID transform us. Of our own accord, the things we once feared became things of the greatest beauty simply by understanding it. What it is, what it is NOT, and why it cannot harm you. We learned that the Universe doesn't hate us, doesn't toy with us, mock us, or punish us. We are not born into any shame. We atone for our imperfections, while trying to be more perfect than we CAN be... that's almost noble... and dumb at the same time. Earth made us like this. From a natural fear of the dark, our ancestors developed, by survival necessity, an instinctive fear of the unseen and the invisible, which our higher minds mistake as fear of the unknown and the unknowable. But it doesn't have to be like that... Not anymore.

what a terribly misleading article I mean yeah, we do have innate tendencies to reciprocate, it's how evolution dealt with the constant iterative prisoner's dilemmas in the ancestral environment. however it has the equivalent strength of a matchstick - you can make another human carry out horrific acts with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment]disturbingly[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment]little[/url] effort.

[QUOTE=J!NX;34803786]there are positive reasons to be aggressive as well.[/QUOTE] Positive agression is an oxymoron imo.

[QUOTE=Falchion;34804253]Positive agression is an oxymoron imo.[/QUOTE] no not really

[QUOTE=Falchion;34804253]Positive agression is an oxymoron imo.[/QUOTE] Aggression isn't a good thing generally, but it's sure as shit not a bad reaction when you're being attacked and have no other choice. And being "Too nice" can also be a bad thing, as well.

Yet again Facepunch thinks it knows more than actual scientists.

This is pretty dumb and unscientific.

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;34803796]Being a naturally aggressive species has it's pros. If we happen to be engaged in warfare with something of extraterrestrial origin we'll at least be known as a bunch of fighters rather than cowards.[/QUOTE] Or we'd be ants under a magnifying glass.

[QUOTE=aurum481;34800627]How do you create a trap that a rat has to help to get out another rat instead of going for chocolate.[/QUOTE] Make the rat that's already trapped a female, and the free rat a male.

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] Science is always right until *I* disagree with it.

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] or the circumstances of the world and their lives could condition humans to be violent; "people are just naturally violent" isn't the only answer sometimes humans are violent therefore humans are just naturally violent isn't a sound logical argument [editline]21st February 2012[/editline] what about conflict theory? what about differing interpretations? what about all the countless different ways you could interpret the data that "some humans have committed atrocious acts of violence upon each other" than the absolutely simplest, shallowest "well I guess it must be natural" perspective?

[QUOTE=J!NX;34804305]Aggression isn't a good thing generally, but it's sure as shit not a bad reaction when you're being attacked and have no other choice. And being "Too nice" can also be a bad thing, as well.[/QUOTE] Could be on an invidual level, but in reality I think a large part of conflicts between ethnic groups and nations are result of the circle of revenge. Violence breeds violence and sometimes the innocent get the role of being substitutes for revenge.

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] ... And if Chimps were in charge? We are violent, yes, but comparatively we are a very kind species.

Well that's good. Because the "Humans fucking sucks because we rape, kill and are liek rats" Is a philosophical thesis. Not scientific.

[QUOTE=1239the;34800611]It's actually nice to know that all of Ayn Rand's raving bullshit about mankind being inherently and utterly driven by selfishness is now scientifically invalidated.[/QUOTE] It's not so much that people aren't selfish unless conditioned to be otherwise. If you live walled off and work solely with yourself in mind, you will not get anywhere - this is why capitalism works, because someone's own self-interest can be used to indirectly promote general advancement of society (if the industrial age had never happened, we would still be living in log cabins with no power). If people were more selfless, society would likely be more homogenous and probably not so markedly advancing like it is now.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;34806754]It's not so much that people aren't selfish unless conditioned to be otherwise. If you live walled off and work solely with yourself in mind, you will not get anywhere - this is why capitalism works, because someone's own self-interest can be used to indirectly promote general advancement of society (if the industrial age had never happened, we would still be living in log cabins with no power). If people were more selfless, society would likely be more homogenous and probably not so markedly advancing like it is now.[/QUOTE] except that doesn't actually "work" because there are billions of people living in poverty while a small number of people have (in the name of their self-interest) accumulated vast sums of wealth that they could never possibly need. self-direction is fine but when economic systems get as complicated and profit-margin oriented as they are in the global economy "making money" becomes synonymous with "exploiting somebody, somewhere"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau[/url] before anyone makes any sweeping philosophical statements on the nature of all of humanity, read those first

We nearly killed [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei]a man[/url] because he said the universe didn't revolve around us.

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;34803796]Being a naturally aggressive species has it's pros. If we happen to be engaged in warfare with something of extraterrestrial origin we'll at least be known as a bunch of fighters rather than cowards.[/QUOTE] I'd rather be known as peaceful "cowards" as you put it rather than as fighters to any extraterrestrial race out there. If we're accepting the fact that there are aggressive species of aliens out there, then we should also accept the fact there will probably be species just as interested in protecting those who can't protect themselves. I'd rather have friends than enemies.

I believe that what the guy is trying to say here is that we could be worse. Oh, so much worse.

I think to say that all humans are naturally evil or self-centred or brutish, is to insult those who have done incredible acts of good.

I'll agree with that sentiment that humans aren't inherently nasty. The majority of humans are kind and happy to help their fellow humans. But I also think we are still very tribal. We react hostile to what we perceive as a threat to ourselves and our tribes. It's a survival mechanism. We have to rely on each other, but we also have to protect ourselves from any threats.

[QUOTE=Falchion;34805747]Could be on an invidual level, but in reality I think a large part of conflicts between ethnic groups and nations are result of the circle of revenge. Violence breeds violence and sometimes the innocent get the role of being substitutes for revenge.[/QUOTE] People can be nasty, like I said, but not people in general, the real aggression comes from all of us acting as a whole. On an individual level look at any Occupy protest, they all have stories and reasons, on a massive level, it's a cluster fuck.