Human Nature - naughty or nice ? (Definitely NO Spam.)

[Kameleon]

Originally posted by Kameleon
the proper authorities.

In an attempt to increase his measly post count, Kameleon lets his schizophrenic alter-ego say a bit:

Proper authorities? If there had ever been an honest politician before, I'm sure one would have been set up, but currently there isn't one. Hang on, there was one a few years ago - I think the Mafia dealt with him

[Kameleon]

Originally posted by lazy
Call me lazy...

Oh dear me, three posts in a row in a no-spam thread.

Beldin started it, honest guv'nor

[Quark]

Actually, I believe that humans are 100% selfish, consciously or subconsciously. Everything that a person can do will benefit them in some way, right? Whether or not they admit it to the world (or themselves) it's a selfish act.

When you see people trying to convince others to do something 'right' it's always because 1)'it's the right thing to do' or 2)'it will make you feel good'.

If I'm nice to someone, then they can be nice to me or let other's know I'm nice. Helping someone out w/ computer problems not only gives them a better opinion of me, it helps increase my computer knowledge.

I still have yet to find one thing in the world that has no personal gain, whatsoever.

[Kameleon]

Well, if you include making yourself feel good as being a selfish act, I can't right now think of any unselfish act either. Good point

[HighLordDave]

With the specific context of elected politicians, I think it is fair to say that people enter a life of public service out of one of two basic motivations: power or idealism.

I think that at local levels, people are either out to be the big fish in the pond or they think that they can actually change their community. Local municipalities pay next to nothing (our county commissioners are paid something like $6,000 per year for what works out to be at least a part time job), so the motiviation is obviously not wealth.

Even at the state and national levels, elected officals make very little compared to what they could fetch in the private sector; the President of the United States, the most powerful man on Earth, makes a little over $200,000 per year.

I think that some politicians want power and pursue politics to gain that power (ie-Lyndon B. Johnson, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, etc.).

I also believe that there are some genuinely good people who serve in the halls of Congress, state legislatures and other elected offices. Ambassador Pete Peterson is one such example. Pete served in the House of Representatives as a Democrat from Marianna, FL and was later the US Ambassador to Vietnam. During the war, he was shot down and spent six years in the "Hanoi Hilton". When Clinton was elected in 1992, Peterson was the first ambassdor sent to Vietnam since the US pulled out in 1975. He has since been replaced, but founded a private corporation which seeks to improve US-Vietnamese relations and develop the Vietnamese economy and infrastructure (largely with private US dollars).

The problem for the good guys in politics is that there are so many rotten apples. In part, this is due to the large influx of money. People don't get elected because they are necessarily good; there is a direct correllation between campaign spending and getting elected. That is, generally speaking, if you spend more money campaigning than your opponent, you'll probably get elected. So politicians spend mounds of money getting elected, then they are beholden to the people who gave them money because in a couple of years, the politician needs to get re-elected.

In this cycle, politicians have ceased to be legislators or elected (state-level) cabinet officials and have become fund raisers. Since they need your money, they prostitute themselves around to people willing to write them big checks; individuals and companies like say, Kenneth Lay and Enron.

I think this is the reason why we distrust politicians; we have become jaded and believe that no one is in Congress to do good. They are only there to take money from big businesses and special interests and get re-elected.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Originally posted by Beldin
@ode: That's assuming there IS a god....that's not been proven yet.

I for one remain unconvinced.

IMHO, even those politicians who set out trying to make the world "better" are still only trying (in most cases) to force their opinions of what is "good" onto everybody else. For examples I cite Australia's current Prime Minister, John Howard, and of course Dubyah. While these people no doubt are acting with the best of intentions, their views are not necessarily 'good' according to all of the society which they represent. As politicians are meant to represent the views of the people in their policies, I would hardly say this is 'good' behaviour for a leader.

[HighLordDave]

Presumably, if a person is elected, he or she represents at least a plurality, if not a majority, of their society. Dubya lost the popular vote, yet by our idiosynchronous electoral system, won a majority of the votes needed to become president.

In most systems, being elected shows that an official represents enough of the constituency to represent the full spectrum of voters. If an elected politician does not represent a cross-section of their electorate, they probably will not be elected, or they will be ousted from office by voters who are either outright hostile or at least disenfranchised.

[C Elegans]

Human nature is neither good nor evil, IMO such polarised and simplifying fairy-tale concepts are irrelevant to the question of human nature.

However, human nature clearly holds characteristics that are both "selfish" and "altruistic" in the sense that we have evolved to behave both as to increase the probability of our own, and the groups' survivial. Humans are a groups living species, therefore altruistic acts towards other group members are benefical also to our own well-being and survival.

Here's an abstract (a summary of a scientific study) as a little food for thought regarding "selfish" and "altruistic" human behaviour:

Nature 415, 137 - 140 (2002)
Altruistic punishment in humans

ERNST FEHR AND SIMON GÄCHTER

Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.

[Kameleon]

Originally posted by Beldin
THAT explains a lot about politicians and marketing managers...

THAT was also not a bump. Neither was it spam though...maybe there should be a third classification for "useless garbage that may or may not be humorous and also may or may not have anything remotely to do with the topic"? Oh hang on, that's spam.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Kameleon


THAT was also not a bump. Neither was it spam though...maybe there should be a third classification for "useless garbage that may or may not be humorous and also may or may not have anything remotely to do with the topic"? Oh hang on, that's spam.

I think it is okay to add the odd bit of humour to a serious debate now and again; as long as it is pertienent and satirical to the debate at hand