Just a “funny” story about my experience in the hospital

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

but my thought was merely a statement of cynicism regarding human nature.

Many (most?) humans showed exemplary nature by simply following public health guidance during Covid, minimizing social encounters to help limit contagion, wearing masks properly and over their nose, and getting vaccinated once hard working scientists finally made it ready. 

Human nature is pretty amazing, except for those parts of our brains which crowd out the positive and amplify and exaggerate the negative. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by iNow

[Steve81]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Many (most?) humans showed exemplary nature by simply following public health guidance during Covid, minimizing social encounters to help limit contagion, wearing masks properly and over their nose, and getting vaccinated once hard working scientists finally made it ready. 

Human nature is pretty amazing, except for those parts of our brains which crowd out the positive and amplify and exaggerate the negative. 

Did they? 

In most places I'm aware of, it wasn't a matter of following simple guidance; they were following mandates. There is also the simple motive of self-preservation to explain these actions, which is certainly a base human instinct, as opposed to the social altruism you're describing. And while vaccines may not have been legally mandated (at least here in the States), I know some employers mandated them once they were available in sufficient quantity. 

History is a guide to human nature, and we were absolute barbarians. We've become more civilized as time has passed, but that's nurture, not nature. We learned to better ourselves. Unfortunately, many now disfavor education, specifically on one end of the political spectrum (at least in the US).

Edited August 12, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

As your desire seems to be elevating negative views over positive examples, tell me how many positive examples it would take to convince you otherwise, specifically regarding the idea that human nature tends daily and in aggregate to be far more good than bad. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by iNow

[Steve81]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

As your desire seems to be elevating negative views over positive examples, tell me how many positive examples it would take to convince you otherwise, specifically regarding the idea that human nature tends daily and in aggregate to be far more good than bad. 

It’s not a matter of positive or negative views. It’s a simple result of our evolutionary arc. One of the major things that allowed us to develop the way we did was our built in capacity to feel shame, and learn new ways to behave. You can explore that more deeply here:

Edited August 12, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Steve81 said:

You can explore that more deeply here:

Which page, specifically?

If it’s easier, you can just share the source material / citation the author used in support of this claim you say they made:

6 hours ago, Steve81 said:

It’s a simple result of our evolutionary arc. One of the major things that allowed us to develop the way we did was our built in capacity to feel shame, and learn new ways to behave.

… so that way I may review the original source material directly myself. “Go read this book” isn’t good enough here.

Alternatively, perhaps we can BOTH save some time by acknowledging that this book you keep spam pimping across various posts maybe has nothing to do with the conversation we are having about whether human nature is good or bad.

We can maybe acknowledge it’s unhelpful as a response to my question regarding how many positive examples it would take to change your mind and convince you you’re taking too grim a view by concluding human nature is fundamentally bad. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by iNow

[Steve81]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which page, specifically?

Edited August 12, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

Interesting. Thanks. I’d say shame is not specific to humans. 

On another note, you should be ashamed for thinking that answers my question. 

Here it is again: How many examples of human goodness would it take for you to change your mind about human nature being fundamentally bad?

I disagree with that. Bring me over to your view, or clarify what would bring you over to mine. 

[Steve81]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Interesting. Thanks. I’d say shame is not specific to humans. 

On another note, you should be ashamed for thinking that answers my question. 

Here it is again: How many examples of human goodness would it take for you to change your mind about human nature being fundamentally bad?

I disagree with that. Bring me over to your view, or clarify what would bring you over to mine. 

It does answer your question, depending upon what you define as human nature. If you take a newborn human baby and toss him into the wild, what will he become (aside from food for an animal) without other humans to teach him? That's what human nature is as I'm defining it. What we teach our children is what makes them civilized, and capable of social interaction. On the alternate end of the spectrum, we can also teach our children to be monsters via neglect and abuse. 

And to restate, I don't think human nature is in that respect is inherently good or bad. But being living creatures, we do have certain built-in survival instincts (what I define as our nature)  that may not always produce good results in a group environment. That's where shame comes in. Over time, we've gotten better at producing a more civilized society as a result of it, and more enlightened philosophies emerging that changed the ideals of society. To wit, if no one was ashamed to own slaves, we'd still probably have slavery.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

What we teach our children is what makes them civilized, and capable of social interaction. On the alternate end of the spectrum, we can also teach our children to be monsters via neglect and abuse. 

That’s only one side of the coin. Teaching can help shape a child’s predispositions, but the clay being molded there is largely genetic. That then gets amplified by how those genes interact with the environment (including nutrition, stress, sleep, physical attachments, experiences, etc.) across time. 

Just look at Annikan skywalker. 

56 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

if no one was ashamed to own slaves, we'd still probably have slavery.

The lack of shame in so many of todays politics is a large part of why everything feels so dysfunctional lately. Without trust in each other or our institutions, chaos ensues and anarchy expands.

Fascism and nationalism are strong tools in building those outcomes. Kindness and respect and the medicines which cure the illnesses they bring. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by iNow

[Steve81]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

That’s only one side of the coin. Teaching can help shape a child’s predispositions, but the clay being molded there is largely genetic. That then gets amplified by how those genes interact with the environment (including nutrition, stress, sleep, physical attachments, experiences, etc.) across time. 

Just look at Annikan skywalker. 

So if I acknowledge that there are genetic factors (and certainly we're not all the same at birth), can we identify what genetic properties might predispose a person to be "good" as you might define? As a practical matter, how can we separate that from the teaching aspect of the puzzle, to determine which is responsible for a particular good act? How do we even determine the motivations of that good act, given that we're relying on a subjects capable of deception? People can do good things for non-altruistic reasons after all. 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

can we identify what genetic properties might predispose a person to be "good" as you might define?

No, at least not yet. 

6 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

how can we separate that from the teaching aspect of the puzzle, to determine which is responsible for a particular good act?

We can’t. 

6 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

How do we even determine the motivations of that good act, given that we're relying on a subjects capable of deception?

How does this matter?

The goodness of the deed is determined by the deed itself, not by the motivations of the doer, is it not?

Is the impact of the positive act of goodness somehow altered by the doers motivation?

8 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

People can do good things for non-altruistic reasons after all. 

An argument can be made that all actions are selfish, even altruistic one’s (bc of the nice little dopamine and oxytocin dose they hit us with).

Again though, what does it matter to the drowning child if the neighbor pulling them from the frozen lake is only doing it for selfish reasons?

[Steve81]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, at least not yet. 

We can’t. 

So what about our inherent nature do you feel makes us essentially "good", i.e. altruistic?

I would opine the presence of shame in our coding is a good thing on balance, and tends to push us towards altruism (even if it takes a while...). Our ability to think rationally is more of a mixed bag. It can and has been used for good and ill. Beyond that, I don't know what aspects you're considering. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Beyond that, I don't know what aspects you're considering. 

You don’t know what I mean when I say that people are being good and helpful and kind toward one another at all times across all days and in essentially every place across earth?

To be clear, I’m not saying all acts and all people are 100% good, only that it’s several orders of magnitude easier to find than the evil in human nature you suggested via an earlier post eclipses it. 

[Steve81]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

You don’t know what I mean when I say that people are being good and helpful and kind toward one another at all times across all days and in essentially every place across earth?

To be clear, I’m not saying all acts and all people are 100% good, only that it’s several orders of magnitude easier to find than the evil in human nature you suggested via an earlier post eclipses it. 

Have you considered the bias caused by the fact that people readily report good acts, and hide bad ones  (yet again looping back to shame 😛) in your analysis? What we do behind closed doors tells us a lot about our nature.

As a fun addendum to that, you can see my nature that I get snippy when I get frustrated 😛

Still, I generally prefer constructive, thoughtful conversation to pointless bickering. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The goodness of the deed is determined by the deed itself, not by the motivations of the doer, is it not?

Is the impact of the positive act of goodness somehow altered by the doers motivation?

An argument can be made that all actions are selfish, even altruistic one’s (bc of the nice little dopamine and oxytocin dose they hit us with).

Again though, what does it matter to the drowning child if the neighbor pulling them from the frozen lake is only doing it for selfish reasons?

Just saw this part of your earlier post.

Regarding the that all actions are selfish, I would agree with that from my experiences. If you check out the How to Excel at Technical Support tidbit I threw up on the forum, you'll find that I note that being courteous to all the parties I interact with improves my job performance, sometimes in unexpected ways. I'm also generally much happier in my job when I act this way, so even if it might have been a mask at first, it's not now (though this is hardly a groundbreaking psychological phenomenon).

Does it matter to the clients that I serve one way or the other? I don't know. I can't know what they heard on the other end of the phone when I spoke with them earlier versus now, which is to say I can't know how convincing my mask was. All I can say is they're definitely happy with my performance now (company started doing random surveys recently.)

Edited August 12, 2023 by Steve81

[Steve81]

In hindsight, I should have said people hide their bad deeds like a dead body in the backyard. Ahh well. I still get a chuckle out of it.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Steve81 said:

Have you considered the bias caused by the fact that people readily report good acts, and hide bad ones

Yes

[Steve81]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes

Please explain your methodologies for accounting for this factor in your analysis.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

No thank you

[OldChemE]

On 8/11/2023 at 5:14 PM, CharonY said:

The issue is that it works quite well if folks have only minor health issues. But once it gets serious, folks are facing a double-whammy. The company might fire them because of lost work due to illness, (and the likelihood of being irreplaceable has been shrinking in modern companies), and losing the insurance can result in massive debt (there is plenty of statistics to show that). Before ACA, pre-existing conditions could also be excluded from coverage. So yes, if you have a good income, a great job with excellent coverage, it might not seem like a problem. But for everyone else, the situation kind of sucks and statistics do show the negative impact on overall public health, especially for those with lower income.

That being said, public health is a team sport and if one lets someone suffer, sooner or later almost everyone will be affected negatively.

 

I understand-- and don't disagree.  It just wasn't fun when the playing field got leveled and I found out my company health plan was one of the things to get leveled.

[Ayass Researc]

Your experience highlights the need for diabetic-friendly meal options in hospitals. Tailored meals could improve insulin management and patient outcomes, reducing unnecessary insulin use. Advocating for such changes could benefit both patients and healthcare systems.