A fine essay on Conservatism

[ParanoiA]

Toasty, you seem to be equating human nature with human behavior. I thought jryan already made the point that behaviors will fluctuate but the nature of man will not.

 

For instance:

 

Do you go and hunt buffalo for your food?

 

Yes, we still eat meat by killing, not by synthesis.

 

Do you dance the rain dance to make sure your crops get watered?

 

Yes, we watch the news forecast and if rain isn't likely, crops are watered - we are tool makers. Tool making doesn't change our nature either.

 

Would you ever trade your daughter to her future husband because he has the best livestock to offer?

 

Yes, people still use and manipulate their offspring to acquire access to old and new money.

 

Is it acceptable to beat your wife if what you use to beat her is no wider than your thumb?

 

Yes, many men still beat and subjugate their women.

 

These are all examples of human behavior that are not as prevalent anymore and in some cases have been outlawed. To imply that human behavior doesn't change is just madness. With technological change there is inevitable social/behavioral change.

 

Right, those are all examples of human behavior - and none of them say anything about the nature of men to desire them.

 

To this day, murder is illegal and we have a hands down, super majority that would agree it should be illegal and will comply - yet men still kill men. Our nature has not changed, despite our best efforts.

 

All these factors effect human behavior, many of these factors are always changing. So how can you argue that human behavior has not changed in the slightest? Its just dishonest.

 

It's also dishonest to misrepresent his argument as a statement about behavior rather than a statement about nature. I think it was an honest misstep on your part, but you've left no room for modesty when you characterize his statement as "bunch of crap" and calling his argument a "lie".

 

And what basic instinct was it that employed us to create the railroad?

 

Making tools?

 

 

Don't misunderstand, I'm not necessarily in agreement with the "there is nothing new under the sun". At this point I just find it curious and there are decent points on both sides of this, really.

[bascule]

Toasty, you seem to be equating human nature with human behavior. I thought jryan already made the point that behaviors will fluctuate but the nature of man will not.

 

Originally jryan was talking about human behavior, but slowly shifted his language to human nature.

 

Don't misunderstand, I'm not necessarily in agreement with the "there is nothing new under the sun"

 

Case in point: the Internet

[toastywombel]

Originally, Jryan presented an essay on conservatism. I critiqued it which you can refer back to in the previous post, I made an argument against a segment of text I had read in the essay, one of several.

 

The philosophical core of conservatism is pessimism about the improvement of mankind. That is not to say that conservatives necessarily regard humans as entirely deplorable. It is rather to say that they agree with Marcus Aurelius that he who has seen the present has seen everything. The accidents may change, but the fundamentals of human nature and the texture of human experience do not.

 

I says, that, "the fundamentals of human nature and the texture of human experience do not."

 

Well, I didn't comment on human nature, I commented the implication of human behavior not changing. Which I derived from the broad term at the end, "texture of human experience". I figured that the human experience, living life as a human in our world, is dependent on the behavior of other humans around you, therefore the idea that it doesn't change is ludicrous.

 

So even though this is not true, seeing as human behavior has drastically changed and evolved throughout history, I want to skip to, 'if you have seen the present, you have seen everything'. Really what does that mean? Considering that the present is ever changing, I do not think that statement is an accurate description of reality.

That was a small point in my initial post, that jryan picked out and I only mentioned it briefly. Jryan than responded with a question, which was obviously an attempt at making his point.

 

How has human behavior changed throughout history?

 

Then bascule, iNow, Sysiphus(don't think i spelled that right) and I responded with many examples of how human behavior has changed, not completely, but that human behavior certainly is not constant. Jryan then responded,

 

I don't think there is evidence that human behavior has changed either, quite frankly, as a whole. Technology has done little but accentuate our age old drives to both preserve ourselves and kill others and I see no reason to believe that the future holds any more promise than that. It is pessimistic, I know, but it is also realistic.

 

Then jyran continued and stated that, we seem to be confusing human nature with human behavior. When it was him initially he who started using the term human nature. I began to use the term human nature, because I thought when he was using it, he was referring to the initial point I made(in response to the essay he presented), which was about human behavior. So there was obviously some confusion, and I take blame in confusing the two terms, but it was due to an debate shift by jryan.

 

Furthermore jryan was also arguing a point put forth by bascule I think, that we are living in the most peaceful time in human history. Making a point that violence is much less prevalent now, than in the past. This point also falls under the realm of human behavior, and jryan was arguing against that as well. So I don't see how he has made any clear point as you state Paranoia,

 

Toasty, you seem to be equating human nature with human behavior. I thought jryan already made the point that behaviors will fluctuate but the nature of man will not.

 

The only point I see him taking is the point opposite of whatever my and/or others (with like minded political views) point is.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just so no one confuses the points, according to wikipedia,

 

Human behavior is the population of behaviors exhibited by humans and influenced by culture, attitudes, emotions, values, ethics, authority, rapport, hypnosis, persuasion, coercion and/or genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavior

 

Human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

 

So no wonder jyran wanted to shift the debate to human nature, because the concept of human nature is more in correspondence with his argument. Oddly enough though, human nature seems under this definition to cover the topic of human behavior.

 

Here is the definition according to the Oxford Pocket Dictionary, 2009.

 

the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-humannature.html

Edited April 14, 2010 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[JohnB]

I too think there has been miscommunication. I took the original meaning to be human "nature" even though "behaviour" was written.

 

Our societies have changed, our behaviour (to a degree) has changed and our societies have changed, but our nature has not.

 

We still fall for the same tired old arguments. We still fall for the same old scams. I mean come on, do you really think the Nigerian emails are something new? They're nothing more than a new version of a very old con.

 

If our nature had changed in any fundamental way, would we still need to constantly remind people "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"?

 

The desire by some to control others is still there. Some use politics, some use religion, some use money and some use fear. The tactics and weapons change, but the base desire is the same to control the behaviour of others.

 

Re slavery/serfdom. The growing reliance of many Americans on company provided healthcare means that many are forced to remain in jobs they don't like or want to do. How are they more "free" than a serf?

 

Instead of "Bread and Circuses" we give the masses "Social Security and Glossy magazines", but the principle is the same. Keep the population fed and distracted by pretty things and they are easier to control.

 

If human nature had changed then so would the methods of control, simply because the old ones would stop working. Human nature has not changed and neither have the methods of control. They have just been given a new coat of paint and a new look.

 

WRT human nature, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

I believe that our nature will change, but it will be on an evolutionary timescale, hence a couple of thousand years is nothing.

[toastywombel]

I too think there has been miscommunication. I took the original meaning to be human "nature" even though "behaviour" was written.

 

According to the above definitions human behavior can fall under the umbrella of human nature.

[bascule]

Our societies have changed, our behaviour (to a degree) has changed and our societies have changed, but our nature has not.

 

This is the point at which I tell you all to STFU.

 

There is no such thing as "human nature". Every human is different.

 

Your motivations are not my own. If you purport they are, FOAD.

 

KTKS.

[ParanoiA]

Furthermore jryan was also arguing a point put forth by bascule I think, that we are living in the most peaceful time in human history. Making a point that violence is much less prevalent now, than in the past. This point also falls under the realm of human behavior, and jryan was arguing against that as well. So I don't see how he has made any clear point as you state Paranoia,

 

Well, I was taking his last post on the matter. You appeared to be taking issue with a much earlier post of his. From what I can tell, he's posted several times since then, but this is the point you argued:

 

Hint: No it's not. We have learned more about the universe around us and how to build nifty gadgets along the way but it has not changed human nature in the slightest.

 

That's the post you used to respond to. But like I said, I understand and you're certainly right, the two are somewhat conflated at this point.

 

So no wonder jyran wanted to shift the debate to human nature, because the concept of human nature is more in correspondence with his argument. Oddly enough though, human nature seems under this definition to cover the topic of human behavior.

 

Sure, but that doesn't strike me as disingenuous. Obviously he's crystalizing his position, and flexing to the demands of the information. I too have had to pay more attention to my verbiage as my knowledge expands.

 

According to the above definitions human behavior can fall under the umbrella of human nature.

 

I don't think so, they are not synonymous. I think you can query human nature by observing human behavior, but I do not think they are equal. Behavior can be modified, but it doesn't mean our nature has been modified. I agree with JohnB above, and I think his examples illustrate the point well. Local human behavior can be misleading - such as assuming we're done controlling people merely because we do it in a different way.

 

This is why I brought up the notion of quantifying our nature. By observing behavior past and present, do we have the information necessary to do a comparison and objectively measure a difference, positive or negative? And is that even valid? I'm not sure quantifying behavior by incident really means anything to nature either, actually.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is the point at which I tell you all to STFU.

 

There is no such thing as "human nature". Every human is different.

 

Your motivations are not my own. If you purport they are, FOAD.

 

KTKS.

 

 

Oh BS. We're 99% the same. We just focus on the 1% because our ego demands it.

 

Actually, it would be nice to find an actual figure on that. I'm not convinced our brain chemistry makes us so different we can claim to be all that different. We are biologically unique to be sure, as I'm sure every organism is ultimately, while sharing the exact same parts and processes.

[Phi for All]

Oh BS. We're 99% the same. We just focus on the 1% because our ego demands it.

Is it just the 1% that separates the compassionate, caring, loyal, positive thinking, hard-working father and husband who likes giving back to his community from the brutal, selfish, promiscuous, dishonest crack dealer who beats his wife and kids? Is the "nature" of those two guys really the same?

[jryan]

Is it just the 1% that separates the compassionate, caring, loyal, positive thinking, hard-working father and husband who likes giving back to his community from the brutal, selfish, promiscuous, dishonest crack dealer who beats his wife and kids? Is the "nature" of those two guys really the same?

 

 

That's a fine question that I don't think anybody really wants to discuss honestly. We are a culture of redemption, but accepting a difference in "nature" between the just and the wicked would lead one to believe that redemption may not be possible.

Edited April 14, 2010 by jryan

[ParanoiA]

Is it just the 1% that separates the compassionate, caring, loyal, positive thinking, hard-working father and husband who likes giving back to his community from the brutal, selfish, promiscuous, dishonest crack dealer who beats his wife and kids? Is the "nature" of those two guys really the same?

 

Yes, 1% easily makes that difference. Brain chemistry is responsible for this, is it not? Isn't that where the "person" resides? And when we analyze the brain, and break down its various functions and where they are found - will we find a greater than 1% difference? You might jump and say yes, but consider all the functions the brain performs without conscious awareness.

 

Nature is buried in there. For instance, isn't it believed that what we find attractive in a mate has evolutionary originations? That I like certain features because of what it represents in the form of procreation advantages? Isn't that part of our nature?

 

We have a tendency to think of the person as the consciousness, I think and of course, we all have different ideas and opinions and life experiences and we think we're uber unique. While I grant we are unique ultimately, there is more to the person and their nature that their conscious thought processes - and even those thoughts aren't all that unique. We find pieces of our beliefs and thoughts in others too - just scattered around. We are only unique in terms of our particular "group" of thoughts.

 

Considering the whole, no I don't see too much difference in nature between people at all.

 

In casual conversation, I would never make such a statement. But with "STFU" and "FOAD" at the suggestion of sharing nature - I thought it was important.

[padren]

Yes, 1% easily makes that difference. Brain chemistry is responsible for this, is it not? Isn't that where the "person" resides? And when we analyze the brain, and break down its various functions and where they are found - will we find a greater than 1% difference? You might jump and say yes, but consider all the functions the brain performs without conscious awareness.

 

A boulder with a peace sign painted on it, and a boulder with a "Nuke Em All" painted on the side are molecularity almost identical. That does not go to say they are 99% the same when you evaluate them as symbols.

In the same regard, we identify individually as our personalities, not our meat and clockworks.

 

If there was a way to index and measure an individuals personality then you'd quickly find for all intensive purposes two people can have a high percentage of disparity.

 

 

 

On the original topic - does human nature even matter? The course of human history and prehistory can be summed up as how humans behave when raised experiencing different environments, both social and physical. There are physical and social environments not yet developed, which will impact human behavior in yet unknown ways in the future.

 

So, does it even matter if taking a 21st century first-world newborn and letting it be raised by a prehistoric clan at the end of the last ice-age results in a "modern" human turning out to act like a brutal caveman? It seems to me that "Human Nature" is the capacity to adapt in such a spectrum of ways to a wide spectrum of environmental stimuli that an incredible range of behaviors may result.

 

That said, even if total collapse of civilization to the stone age would result in stone age values (still unlikely to fully occur due to parenting) is it really relevant if we continue working to not collapse and improve our environmental stimuli in a manner that has concrete results in a massive improvement in human behavior with regards to violence and happiness?

 

It's worth noting in a place like this country, if a child witnesses a brutal murder we consider him psychologically damaged, prescribe therapy, and make exceptions for his condition... yet in many parts of the world this is still considered "life as usual" and yet we wonder why they don't feel about the world the way we do.

 

It could even be argued that human nature is "by default altruistic and benevolent" but having emerged from such a brutal, cut throat natural world we are still dealing with countless millennia of psychological trauma and shell shock. We only recently (historically) figured out that "hey, it may be bad for your kids to beat them and their mom... it might mess em up and they'll end up beating their own kids." It really looks to me like we are emerging from some long standing cycles of violence and trauma that we are only now beginning to understand.

Where will we be in 100 years? We might all have artificial meat and wondered if it messed with people's heads to have to kill stuff all the time just to survive. We may find the idea of walking past a bum on the street unthinkably callous.

These things won't depend on changes in human nature, but on our environment: Will we have the resources for people to thrive, or will we be starving and cutting each other up over them to get by? If it is the latter, can we really say that's due to "human nature" and not the failure to escape the trauma caused by the existence-long cycle of violence and brutality that humans have lived with?

[JohnB]

This is the point at which I tell you all to STFU.

 

There is no such thing as "human nature". Every human is different.

 

Your motivations are not my own. If you purport they are' date=' FOAD.

 

KTKS. [/quote']

 

Thank you for that concise and eloquent comment. I have no idea what prompted such a vehement reply.

 

Every individual is different, there is no denying that. However, in general, and when taken as a group, there are broad rules that apply for most people. If this were not so, then the science of Psychology wouldn't work. Nor for that matter would political science.

 

I gave the example of "Bread and Circuses" earlier. Do you disagree with that comment? If so, why?

 

Broadly speaking I would contend that the catch all "human nature" is nothing more than the derivations from 4 basic things.

1. The desire to survive.

2. Fight or Flight.

3. Desire to get as much as possible for as little work as possible.

4. Belief in personal, individual superiority.

 

1 and 2 are pretty much instinctual, but can be overridden by environment or other factors. Number 3 is just how people are. (Why do people buy lottery tickets?) Number 4 is why most cons work, many people believe that they are "too smart" to be conned.

 

It has been said that "Those who bet on human greed and avarice won't often be wrong". Do you disagree?

 

I'm bloody sure that the internet scamsters who made some US$500 million last year from the US alone, do not.

 

Everything, from normal business to scamming is a numbers game. Everything.

[Mr Skeptic]

It is indeed true that human nature has not changed, not noticeably anyhow. It is also true that the laws of nature have not changed, not noticeably anyhow. But, we have better understanding of them now, and we have exploited them to make useful things.

 

We have also discovered a new way to acquire knowledge, called science, with which we have in the past hundred years made tremendous advances in the study of human nature. The study of various optical illusions, for example, sheds some light on the human nature of vision. In addition, some trinkets we developed (MRI, fMRI, EEG, implanted electrodes, etc) allow us to gain enormous insights into human nature that we could never have achieved even 100 years ago. All this plus our knowledge of genetics means we can in theory modify human nature, something that would have been unthinkable ages ago.

 

In addition, the presence of various trinkets (agriculture, transportation, communication, medicine, robotics) have enormously changed the world in which we live, with consequent modification of behavior despite the same human nature.

 

I'd say it is definitely possible to live a better life even if not being happier for it. And I am certain we live a better life now than 100 years or more ago.

[bascule]

Another reason this essay is wrong: it likens neoconservatism to modernism. Neoconservatives are not modernist. Nor are paleoconservatives necessarily postmodernists. Conservatives used to be modernists. Neocons are authoritarians. They are not necessarily modernists, and I think typically are postmodernists as well. Modern conservatives are typically against modernism and prefer a return to a "simpler life" and the ways of old. They are generally not fans of change. Progressives are much more modern.

[toastywombel]

It is indeed true that human nature has not changed, not noticeably anyhow. It is also true that the laws of nature have not changed, not noticeably anyhow. But, we have better understanding of them now, and we have exploited them to make use

 

Human nature has not changed by definition, reference my above post.

 

Human Nature

the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans

 

Human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have.

 

So human nature is a concept that their are certain human behaviors/traits/thoughts/actions shared by all humans.

 

So in response to Paranoia,

 

I don't think so, they are not synonymous. I think you can query human nature by observing human behavior, but I do not think they are equal. Behavior can be modified, but it doesn't mean our nature has been modified. I agree with JohnB above, and I think his examples illustrate the point well. Local human behavior can be misleading - such as assuming we're done controlling people merely because we do it in a different way.

 

I never said that the terms were synonymous. I defined them from wikipedia and the Oxford Pocket Dictionary. And according to those given definitions, the topic of human behavior falls under the topic of human nature.

 

I believe that, the way it is being used here, human nature, the desire, the instinct has always been changing, but it is much to slow to be noticeable by the population, because of course it changes through the process of evolution. So to us many of these characteristics can be seen as a constant.

 

Human culture, social behavior, human behavior are rapidly changing. Sure some things are fairly constant from our perspective and stay fairly the same for thousands and thousands of years, but there is always change, everything changes.

 

But to the point, how effective is framing a government around human nature though, what does that really mean? We all pick our nose? We have to hunt, in some manner, to eat?

 

Framing a government is much more complicated than that. Governments need the ability to adapt to new challenges, new problems, and/or new pursuits. That is why I believe a government that essentially does nothing, believes there is nothing new under the sun (like the Coolidge Administration this essay praises) cannot meet the demands of our ever changing world.

 

Finally Bascule said,

 

Another reason this essay is wrong: it likens neoconservatism to modernism. Neoconservatives are not modernist. Nor are paleoconservatives necessarily postmodernists. Conservatives used to be modernists. Neocons are authoritarians. They are not necessarily modernists, and I think typically are postmodernists as well. Modern conservatives are typically against modernism and prefer a return to a "simpler life" and the ways of old. They are generally not fans of change. Progressives are much more modern.

 

I noticed this, but pointing it out really made it clear. It seemed as if the essay was misconstruing the word neo-conservatism. Thanks for pointing this out.

[Phi for All]

This is the point at which I tell you all to STFU.

 

There is no such thing as "human nature". Every human is different.

 

Your motivations are not my own. If you purport they are, FOAD.

 

KTKS.

Dude, seriously? At first I thought you were making some kind of point about human communication but you haven't bothered explaining. Is this really what the membership deserves in a discussion with you?

[ParanoiA]

I believe that' date=' the way it is being used here, human nature, the desire, the instinct has always been changing, but it is much to slow to be noticeable by the population, because of course it changes through the process of evolution. So to us many of these characteristics can be seen as a constant.

 

Human culture, social behavior, human behavior are rapidly changing. Sure some things are fairly constant from our perspective and stay fairly the same for thousands and thousands of years, but there is always change, everything changes.[/quote']

 

Totally agree with that. And well said.

 

But to the point' date=' how effective is framing a government around human nature though, what does that really mean? We all pick our nose? We have to hunt, in some manner, to eat?

 

Framing a government is much more complicated than that. Governments need the ability to adapt to new challenges, new problems, and/or new pursuits. That is why I believe a government that essentially does nothing, believes there is nothing new under the sun (like the Coolidge Administration this essay praises) cannot meet the demands of our ever changing world.[/quote']

 

But I don't think they mean to "frame" a government around this nature, but rather build a government symmetrical to that reality. For example, in reverance to human nature, we should have a national defense since we know humans are not done with war and conquering and that our neighbors covet what we have. That sort of thing.

 

With that in mind, we see disarming the citizenry, as asymmetrical to human nature. Government has earned no magical benevolent status just because we're in the 21st century and life in america is so technological and seemingly civilized - we're just animals in pants, like the commercial says. We could have a Nazi Germany equivalent tomorrow, all we need is the citizenry to idolize their leaders, give them the power to increase their economic and social security and then rationalize the oppression of a minority group - like the rich.

 

Just an example of how we might synchronize government to human nature.

[Mr Skeptic]

Human nature has not changed by definition, reference my above post.

 

Human Nature

the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans

 

Human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have.

 

So human nature is a concept that their are certain human behaviors/traits/thoughts/actions shared by all humans.

 

And the laws of nature relate to how natural things act. Nature has always acted the same way, for example call someone on a telephone and you can transmit your voice along huge distances. This is nature, this is how it works and this is how it has always worked. The behavior of things in nature is the same, and yet we have induced different behaviors from nature by virtue of the same laws under different circumstances. How have we changed human nature so that we now have very little violent death? The behavior of nature and humans is the same, although it appears different.

 

Put a human in the exact same circumstances and then tell me how different they act. Take a modern baby and take them back 1000 years ago to grow up in the dark ages, and tell me they won't hunt and burn witches.

 

The laws of nature have not changed, nor has human nature. Nature and humans behave as they always have, but the circumstances are different, so that the same behaviors under different circumstances appear different. What new law of nature did we invent so that we can have the internet? How have we made nature behave differently so that we can make microwaves? How have we changed human nature to change our behavior so that we have less violent deaths? Nature and humans behave the same as they always have, but the circumstances are different.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[bascule]

Dude, seriously? At first I thought you were making some kind of point about human communication but you haven't bothered explaining. Is this really what the membership deserves in a discussion with you?

 

Apologies for that post (booze and forums make for a tactless bascule), but the point still stands...

[toastywombel]

Paranoia you make a great point,

 

With that in mind, we see disarming the citizenry, as asymmetrical to human nature. Government has earned no magical benevolent status just because we're in the 21st century and life in america is so technological and seemingly civilized - we're just animals in pants, like the commercial says. We could have a Nazi Germany equivalent tomorrow, all we need is the citizenry to idolize their leaders, give them the power to increase their economic and social security and then rationalize the oppression of a minority group - like the rich.

 

This is one reason, why I am a big supporter of second amendment rights. If we are eventually disarmed as a society, it leaves us very vulnerable to a centralized government like ours.