Steve81

Are you suggesting the only way to spread a philosophy is through violence? It may be a quick method of doing so (at least superficially), but it certainly isn't the best way of going about things. Socrates, to the best of my knowledge, never needed to use weapons to disseminate his thoughts (which isn't to say his fellow Greeks were non-violent). Ghandi played an integral role in Indian independence from an Empire that was at best indifferent to the suffering of his people, all without taking up arms. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man influential enough to have a federal holiday observed in his honor, was also a man of peace.

Upon further reflection, this case would appear to suggest a conflict between rule 3 (or at least the spirit behind it) and rule 4. I can't say I have any particular objection to it, but it's not something I'd chose for myself.

No doubt about that. The question is, how do we change culture? The answer is by evolving our philosophies, and hoping they are accepted by the general populace. This is accurate as well, though I would regard this as more of an outlier than something applicable to the general public. If you ask the average person on the street if they would be happier starving or well fed, I think the answer is easy enough to predict. This is why rule #1 of being kind and helpful to others is at the top of the list. Certainly I'm not suggesting people play video games 24/7, assuming that's what they enjoy.

I don't disagree. More study is always a good thing. We've learned by revisiting topics previously thought to be resolved, and finding something unexpected. Based on the discussion with Genady, #3 should be reworded to “Try new things, and engage in the activities you enjoy as long as they don't conflict with rule #1.”

You as well.

Perhaps as an experiment, you could try being kind and helpful towards everyone. It's possible the other party may not reciprocate your kindness, which would detract from your good feelings; however, it's entirely possible you could make a new friend in a place you didn't expect. The affect I'm trying to stimulate with this rule is interest-excitement. Of course you have to be interested in the subject. Learning that the stove is hot by burning yourself isn't going to do anything to generate interest. That said, we aren't born knowing what we are interested in. We do that through broadening our horizons by learning new things. Please support your statement with logic. Otherwise it is merely your opinion, which isn't valid in this discussion.

I concur 100% with your thoughts. From my observations, changing human behavior is a bitch as well, as you allude to. The only fix I can think of is education, and regular law enforcement crackdowns on aggressive drivers. A technological solution would be autonomous vehicles, or a modification of current crash-detection sensors to automatically brake if you're following too closely. These would take time to implement on a large scale of course.

Surely. I'm unopposed to such improvements.

That's exactly it. Thank you for better explaining what I was trying to say. Also noted for what you're looking for with a hypothesis.

LOL

In specific terms, no. In broad terms, maybe, hence the follow up questions. A brief survey could be useful as well. 1. Do you tend to feel good about being kind and helpful towards others? 2. Do you tend to feel a sense of satisfaction when you learn something new? On 3 and 4, I’m not sure they warrant such questions. Clearly you feel good about doing things you enjoy, or you wouldn’t enjoy them. In the same vein, clearly you feel better when you take care of your needs rather than neglect them, else they wouldn’t be needs.

Sorry, I’m still obviously new at this. If you could point me in the direction of a hypothesis you feel is particularly well written / in the format you’re looking for, I can aim to use that as a template.

Care to share your experience? PM is fine if you don’t want it public.

One final thought for the evening, if we accept experiments on infants as valid. Based on the affects identified by Tomkins, coupled with the previously mentioned biological responses to kindness, it seems possible to generate a list of rules to maximize human happiness. 1. Be kind and help others to the best of your ability. 2. Learn as much as possible to maximize personal satisfaction as well as your ability to help others. 3. Do what you enjoy, so long as it doesn’t conflict with #1. 4. Take care of your needs. Science meets philosophy. Is this a workable model? Are there any flaws you can identify in the rules, or alterations you would suggest? Do these rules appear to conflict with your own observations on how to achieve happiness?

I believe the "proof" that Dr. Burgo alluded to related to experiments with infants, ala the Still Face Experiment. Since these infants had little or no opportunity to learn behavior, and presuming an adequate sample size, it would certainly indicate genetics is at play.

I agree with that assessment. As far as the benefits of legal weed go, medical marijuana helped me regain my ability to eat adequate quantities of food after being starved for two weeks in the hospital. I could tolerate about a small bowl of broth at the time.

I believe you misinterpreted the article. Given that this is the second time I've read one of these linked articles and found it didn't say what you thought it said, it would help if you folks glossed over the material instead of making assumptions based on the wording of the abstract. If we're engaging in scientific discussion, I expect it to be properly researched on your end as well. Just to clarify, moral behavior is most certainly a learned response. The system that underpins it, according to the studies linked so far that I've read, is in all likelihood genetic. Curiously, this is the converse. As it relates to this topic, we're trying to leverage behavior to affect biological responses. Be kind, feel good. There's literally nothing more to it.

It doesn't necessarily hold. They might be relatively weak on their home planet, and average human strength here. Alternatively, if they were evolved to be stronger, visiting Earth may cause them to suffer effects similar to how human bodies degrade in the microgravity of space, though that takes some time.

From what I can gather reading through on Fessler (2004) as linked by @Genady, it was a logical inference as opposed to direct genetic study. Also worth noting, the hierarchical structure mentioned as how shame developed isn't a denial of what Dr. Burgo had to say (though in further research, I have found some errors in his book already, specifically the primary affect list is a few short). They observed the similarities between the submissive behavior in a hierarchical relationship, but it's an antecedent to shame, not a direct explanation of how shame itself evolved to be. In fact, this paragraph appears to support Dr. Burgo's telling on the development of shame: Fessler only reviews the evolutionary history though; it's not the direct topic of their study. Unfortunately, Gilbert's work appears to be behind a paywall, and while I appreciate knowledge, my funds aren't unlimited (already been buying physics books recommended by you folks).

For what it’s worth, I did reach out to Dr. Burgo, so we’ll see if I get anywhere via that avenue. It’d be helpful to get clarification from the man himself.

Thanks for the commentary. I’m planning on discussing this further with an actual Ph.D. on the subject next weekend, and that will presumably serve to refine and polish things.

Perfect. Now it’s included on the thread for anyone who wants to espouse that idea (not that it’s dramatically different from what I posted; it was still a matter of facilitating socialization.)

Perhaps some are not up to date on the latest studies.

That ignores the plausibility of the hypothesis. We know from historical records that things like exile or excommunication from the Church was a practice. Why wouldn’t the same hold true for prehistoric societies?

I’m using a credible, but untestable hypothesis that appears to have at least some acceptance within the community of professional psychologists. That’s sufficient for me to warrant its inclusion.