"Hi Murilo :)
I think that understanding the most basic principle of life is the most important factor for a good life. That principle is change. We should all acknowledge that change is part of life, whether it is good change or bad change, and that…"
I Power
Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
The Age-Old Debate: What is Human Nature?
A while back when I was having dinner with relatives, they started talking and arguing about politics as usual, the economy, and how wars are fueled by corporate and political interests. My dad states that the government is after the wealth and resources from other countries. My uncle then replies, "They're greedy. It's human nature..."
When we see all the horrible things that we do to each other, many people would often say "it's because it's human nature." But when asked what exactly is human nature, I've gotten different answers. Why do many people blame our bad behavior on something that we know very little about? What exactly is "Human Nature"? It is blamed for pretty much every wrongdoing in the world, but is it really a valid explanation to bad behavior or is it a vague excuse for the way we act?
The Merriam Webster dictionary states that "Human Nature" is ": the nature of humans; especially : the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans." <== [ such a descriptive, informative, and enlightening definition of Human Nature, dontcha think? :p ]
Since I find the dictionary definition to be incredibly vague in my opinion, I decided to try a different approach. People often say that human nature cannot be changed. Referring to the dictionary definition above, what are the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans? Is it all set in stone or is it more malleable than we give it credit for? Is human nature dictated by genes or is there other factors that we must consider?
Do genes ultimately determine behavior? To attempt in answering that question, one has to look into Epigenetics, which is defined loosely as the study of the effects of the environment on gene expression. All organisms are products of the environment in which they live in. Environmental factors trigger biochemical reactions that influence which genes will be active or inactive. Environment can determine whether or not one will have different genetic diseases, disorders, and even certain human behaviors. For example, if someone has a gene that codes for violence or increased aggressiveness, it depends on the environmental factors in play that would activate that gene. Even though that person may have a predisposition to become an extremely aggressive individual, it does not mean that the person is destined to be aggressive as long as they did not grow up with abuse or violence at an early age. Knowing this, then the argument of Nature vs. Nurture is moot since epigenetics shows that it may be both Nature and Nurture that shapes an individual. We have the genes that code for certain behaviors, but it greatly depends on whether or not the environment in which we live in triggers those genes.
In the social sciences, "human behavior" is termed as the range of behaviors displayed by human beings, which are influenced by culture, attitudes, emotions, values, ethics, authority, rapport, hypnosis, persuasion, coercion, and/or genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavior). Perhaps then, to understand why we behave the way we do, we have to understand the environment. How we behave is largely influenced by society and our interactions with other people. If a child grew up in a poor neighborhood witnessing gunfights on a daily basis and nothing else, then we cannot expect him or her to become any better than what he or she has grown up with.
To conclude, perhaps "human nature" is not how we understand it to be. Perhaps human nature is simply the very basic biological functions of human beings - the need to reproduce, to eat, to sleep, to survive...etc, while our behaviors are changeable We simply do not know enough about "Human Nature" to point it out as the cause of all bad behavior in the world. To blame human nature for all the wrongdoings suggests that we are not placing enough responsibility on ourselves to govern our actions. We must be careful not use "human nature" to justify horrific actions. If we can change our behaviors, then wouldn't it be our responsibility to help prevent terrible things from happening? After all, it is as Edmund Burke had said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Is "Human Nature" dictated by our genes or are our behaviors conditioned by our environment? Or is it both? What do you think?
Links:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275332/human-behaviour
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/08/68468
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007161636.htm
Tags: attitudes, behavior, behavioral, biological, biology, change, changeable, culture, debate, discussion, More…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bradut Cristi on -
This reminds me of the quote from planescape torment, "what can change the nature of a man", sadly I never finished the game and I don't remember what this quote was about.
You said that human nature is about the primary needs, to sleep, eat etc, but I will add wealth, love, and maybe more. These things can change a person, and I guess not many can stop and remind who they were a day before.
-
Permalink Reply by Nathan Davies on -
Genes are not deterministic but can be influential. As you mention in your post, environmental conditions can trigger genetic responses that can predispose us to certain behaviors. Environment isn't totally to blame either. There are people who had all the benefits of a great upbringing by an upper class family who turn out to be drug addicts, failures, criminals, etc... while at the same time kids who have been molested, beaten, starved, neglected, and so on grow up to be successful powerful people. Some of these people who had such rough pasts go on the change the world.
I think the answer is in the neurons. I really don't think there is such a thing as "human nature," rather, I think it's "social nature." It's what we've learned to do from our social status, and our culture around us. Not everyone around us has faulty genetics, yet the majority of Americans are selfish, obese, etc.. It's a conditioning about what's normal, acceptable, and what you can expect (i.e. entitlement) from life. Over the development years of our life, our brains mold to fit into the world that we live in. Certain nerve pathways are reinforced, others are left to die.
I think this explains the diversity of things that are considered "normal" in so many different parts of the world. If you're raised in a warlike tribe of cannibals, you're going to think eating people is normal. Here is the US we call you a psychopath. Just something I usually think about when someone talks about being normal. LOL
-
Permalink Reply by The Shiznit on -
I love questions like this. :-)
And you're right, this debate has been going on for quite a while. I remember engaging in it a few times in college many years ago, in both philosophy and psychology courses.
Personally, I'm in the camp that believes that although we may be born with genetic predispositions that environment and experiences are really the dominant forces that shape us and cause us all to become who we are. I suppose you could call me a Behaviorist for that reason; and I have to admit that I did enjoy the works of B.F.Skinner when I was in school; especially his book, Walden Two. I also enjoyed the works and theories of Abraham Maslow; and especially his theory regarding the hierarchy of human needs. In that theory Maslow proposes that we are all motivated by various selfish interests which begin at a very basic, primal level, and then progress towards higher interests and goals as ones on the lower levels are satisfied... culminating, ideally in a form of altruistic "self-actualization". {The U.S. Army calls this "being all you can be"; but I think their ideas of what this means and how to get there are radically different. lol}
Now these ideas imply that human beings are basically selfish creatures, {which is another good debate, hehe,} and that being selfish is our "nature"; but as I tried to point out in this recent post of my own, perhaps there is a lot more going on with that than meets the eye; and perhaps we are not as purely selfish as some people think we are. :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on -
Saying something is 'just human nature' is philosophy, technically, and it isn't mutually explicit with any other notion necessarily such as other pieces of knowledge which, together, explain a cause for our civilization's active warring against itself.
Think about something non-human like a hypothetical inherently 'peaceful' computer AI or being such as in films like E.T: The Extra Terrestrial, and Wall-E. Being a conscious intelligent being does not necessarily imply for example, innate drives of aggression which mask themselves in today's world behind drives to rid each nation of imaginary enemies. There is no enemy of humanity on this planet.
So why do we wage war? Pick apart the situation you are in, eating dinner in a rich country. That, fundamentally, requires wealth. Which requires economic imbalance at some level. Oppression; neglect of children about to die anyway in poor countries; denial of anything inhuman which we take a part in making possible in lands far away. These are all classically human things to repress and deny, while we in the West may take a secondary interest in exploring the infinitely vast complexity of politics for the sake of having a socially[modern-ly] 'correct' opinion in human terms, to explain what's happening, given that primary foundation of being able to live in a rich nation.
I don't have any expectations for other people to analyze the world like this, but I see it all too clearly.
And, well, we could have a world where it's natural for people to 'shut up and put up'.. Equilibrium. But, maybe in terms of being human that would be a sick world to behold the sight of. Maybe our world is sick to whoever looks at it externally. What's certain is that if you live within the mainstream human experience, you are deluded by it by mere function; to merely function well; to adapt and be mentally healthy. Citing this quote from Nathan here-
>I think this explains the diversity of things that are considered "normal" in so many different parts of the
>world. If you're raised in a warlike tribe of cannibals, you're going to think eating people is normal.
-
Permalink Reply by The Shiznit on
-
Such a great comment.
The two things in it that I loved the most were your observations that:
#1. The very idea of one person being "wealthy" requires that somebody else be "poor".
Which means, by extension, that Capitalism is an intrinsically inequitable system.
#2. That the notions of normality are both ambiguous and flexible.
If you're raised in a warlike tribe of cannibals,
you're going to think eating people is normal.
Which pretty accurately describes all the stupid flag-wavers in America, imo.
Thanks Sorlaize. ;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on
-
I don't know what some of those words mean but okay ;)
yeah I have some more interesting themes I like to explore, but I can write good stuff about those 2 which have actually been with me for some time now.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Smith on -
Your title question and ending question were fundamentally different regardless of their proximity in concept, but I'll take a stab at both.
"What is human nature?" This I believe can be described as behaviors that are universal across cultures. I also don't think all human nature is bad, there are many positive traits that all humans find natural. When I speak of humans I do not mean psychopaths, people with brain disorders, or anyone with an unusual or traumatic incident while growing up. All these will comply naturally in most cases. Therefore having anecdotal evidence where one unique person has a unique response to one type of event does not disqualify an entire argument. I also think there is some language traps that may be causing verbal loops in our minds, I will try to point them out. Also each instance of behavior/response i describe is in regards to individuals and not groups.
All humans are capable of thievery, murder, and selfishness and many times when we hear of something whether on the news or otherwise we don't receive all the framework or context that brought a person to behave that way. This is in part due to the limitations of language. A unintended result of this lack of information gave rise to the statement "its human nature". (I believe this and in no way present this a scientific proof to the origin of the statement.) Every human is capable of good behaviors as well and naturally embraces a loved one, laughs together in merriment, and breaks bread with a friend. These traits are natural in that a person will complete that path given certain scenerioes in life. These paths good or bad are that of least resistance and as a behaviorist I believe they are located more in the mind and less in the genes. However much the universality indicates natures to be genes, I think there are definitely learned and not born.
Take a group of humans and isolate them on an island with some way of keeping them alive as an infants. As they age they will form a language amongst themselves. They will fight, playfully at least, to establish dominate roles. They will share resources with companions. Limit the amount of resources and they will steal and even kill to ensure their own or group survival. It's nature, not nature. It's the brains adaptation to a situation that being a behavior that brings them to action. When we say learned behavior we don't mean we saw it happen and figured we could too, rather we adapt to external stimuli with a solution. While its not the only way to walk about everyone puts one leg in front of the other with hands matching the opposing legs direction. No genes solve this. Our brains learn to balance against gravity. Nurture is gravity in this case.
Each behavior is heavily influenced by genes. The chemical arsenal our body employs to stimulate or dampen a response is nothing short of amazing and extensive. Regardless of the brainwashing tricks our genes employ, I believe the action itself begins in the mind. Being conscious of the action afterwards is irrelevant. Automatic responses are still learned, just very early and with great intensity. Although our genes determine the paths available, it is still learned behaviors that go down it.
I see now how easy it is to fall into a nature vs nurture debate with the starting question. At first I saw them as more separate than I do now. It must be human nature to dissect a concept down to fundamental parts and arrive at a final question that is unanswered or unproven by science. Or at least human nature for intellectuals. I once read that "philosophy is a team sport". Now I see some things cannot be learned by just reading. You have to play the game, not just watch it. Had I not written this post I never would have followed the path to end where you did, and continued my life believing the concepts were not entwined enough to be distinct in their own conversations. I am reminded of Kevin Spacey in Kpax saying that everything has a tendency to evolve into a perfect form and how bubbles and atoms and planets are all spheres. I apply that idea here I see it's a strong nature of everything... The path of least resistance.
PS. I think the words have caused a faulty inclination as we use the phrase "Nature vs Nurture" to describe the science debate, and "Human Nature" to describe something a bit older in its creation and abstract in its definition. The word "nature" in the second phrase gives "nature" in the first phrase an unfair and possibly unrealistic advantage. The second "nature" describes both "nature" and "nurture" from the first phrase. I assume there was no need for the distinction when "human nature" was first being described. Perfect example is how Nathan rewords the phrase "human nature" to "social nature". He seemed to inherently be aware of the same language issue.
In conclusion I believe "Human Nature" is a collection of universal behaviors, and nurture wins the science debate. Thankyou for the question and all those that played.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Smith on
-
Sorry the software "notes" ok my phone doesn't translate paragraphs very well to the website. I will try to upgrade, as I know it makes my posts a little unreadable... I thankyou if you push through it regardless.
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on
-
>Take a group of humans and isolate them on an island with some way of keeping them alive as >an infants. As they age they will form a language amongst themselves.
Nope, they will grunt and groom each other and fight like animals over mates. That's what emerges without modern social conditioning.
>All humans are capable of thievery, murder, and selfishness and many times when we hear of
>something whether on the news or otherwise we don't receive all the framework or context that
>brought a person to behave that way. This is in part due to the limitations of language.
Haha, it's partly due to a delusion (or non-empathy) that people aren't entirely the result of the accidents that happened to them along their life. And that if your life happened to be the one taking that bad turn, you'd be the one in handcuffs not being rich enough to tell your story. The point is, that the teachings and beliefs of humanitarianism are contradicted in so many places. That the human delusion is -just an arbitrary thinking process we all share because it's comfortable to- and that, really, there is no inherent salvation or solace or righteousness to attain in our world.. all too reminiscent of the primitive/neanderthal experience. Which is hard to swallow, and then we have all these processes within the human delusion that cloud and misdirect us, because people are always drawn back into this delusion by other people who want to accept it.
So, coming back round to 'human nature', human nature as a concept can be whatever you want. But that it can be clarified and separated from the abstraction of how we behave and respond in today's society, no, I don't think that's possible insofar as defining a helpful concept. You have the biological human, and then you have the social conditioning that's like a mist which engulfs us all, in that it involves and pulls us into its existence. It invades and places itself into us constantly, when we strictly talk from the viewpoint of a conscious being experiencing the (core) bare human consciousness.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Smith on
-
Forgive my freedom in use of the word language but I did not mean they would create a language as sophisticated as ours, at least not the first generation. But through their "grunts" a consensus would emerge and certain grunts would have meaning easily understood amongst the group. I believe they would progress farther than grunts personally and possibly some could acquire names, but even if left to grunts... It is still a language. I agree with what you say about grooming and fighting, so I am not sure why you presented them with your rebuttal.
I also do not find your second paragraph as refuting what I said either so I am assuming you enjoyed the way I worded the part you highlighted. Especially since you put it into your own words and added your own why. I said its in part language you say in part delusion. I believe they are the same thing there. Also there are definitely many answers to why and how we explain other peoples misfortunes. Together we can one day derive all the parts.
I like how you say “invades and places itself into us constantly”. We must always be vigilant of the thoughts our egos present to us as our own thoughts, lest we fall victim to its malware coding. Also I agree defining “human nature” is near impossible but I think sharing our definitions and methods of defining this or any concept will yield pronounced attributes that give measure. Of corse these are only essences but I will never give up on the use of words to convey a semantic thought, no matter how poor words are in actual communication, or complex abstract concepts. Bring them all on I say. Otherwise I would go be a Zen Monk and cease speaking at all.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Smith on
-
I am reminded of an article I read, I will try and find it again and post a link, where there is another primate that uses language similar to us in that it can string words together to form different meanings. Their lexicon is very small but the use of syntax alone is impressive enough to support my “humans left alone would form a language” statement. They will certainly name dangers even if they don’t form syntax.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091212144710.htm
Forum
Discussion: The core of a good life
Started by Murilo Scatolin de Almeida in Introductions. Last reply by Noah Keaton 3 hours ago. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Hello me, it's me again
Started by Grimreaper86 in Introductions. Last reply by Noah Keaton 11 hours ago. 5 Replies 0 Likes
Condemning others to validate ourselves.
Started by Lore in I Power: Self-Development Activism. Last reply by Lore on Thursday. 12 Replies 0 Likes
Latest Activity
Murilo Scatolin de Almeida posted a discussionDiscussion: The core of a good life
Hello, my name is Murilo, I'm from Brazil and this will be my first Discussion Thread. The foccus on this thread will be discuss what YOU think its important to a good life.So.. I'm 19 years old, I was currently trying to find a profession that will…See More
Noah Keaton replied to Grimreaper86's discussion Hello me, it's me again"'Striving for the ideal'. I think that is what most of the people here on I Power want to do, but how are we going to do it?"
Lore replied to Grimreaper86's discussion Hello me, it's me again"Welcome man. Anarchy rules! I do think the point you bring up about the humanity we live with not being ideal for Anarchy is excellent. It is why, although quite hardened with my Anarchist views, it is more in the theoretical sense. I want to strive…"
Grimreaper86 replied to Grimreaper86's discussion Hello me, it's me again"Oh and anarchy imo has a bad stigma but doesn't necessarily imply a bad thing. It's an absence of laws and government, which I believe humanity is cable of living in such conditions in ideal circumstances, although the humanity we…"
Grimreaper86 replied to Grimreaper86's discussion Hello me, it's me again"I'm sure pure seeds can be found through the internet if no where else, while Monsanto is powerful they do not have control of all seeds, yet.....and honestly I wouldn't know what seeds are safe to buy, I'm working on learning more…"
Noah Keaton replied to Grimreaper86's discussion Hello me, it's me again"Welcome Grim :)
I'm fairly new myself, but haven't created an introduction of any sort. I mostly chat with the core members of I Power.
I say that I think similarly when it comes to the 'my environment is a blessing because I can…"
Grimreaper86 posted a discussionHello me, it's me again
Hello fellow posters,No matter where you go, there you are and so, here I am. Or am I?I don't suppose it really matters where we are because in all likelihood we're just mathematical algorithms in a simulated quantum universe and yet it doesn't feel…See More
Cole Riggall commented on Victor Morrow's video
What if we trusted you?: Jerry Michalski at TEDxCopenhagen 2012
"Amazing points this man has. For as long as I can remember, I've known the school system is broken and that there must be a better way. I'm so thankful for TED Talks and everything they expose people to, but I just hope things like this…"
© 2013 Created by Reese Leysen.
