Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MDFification]

Any of y'all read/studdied Thomas Hobbes? I'm interested to hear what you think about his redefining the motivation of humans (the pursuit of felicity, which can be anything really, rather than pure rational self-interest) and how this affects attempts to plan a society. If people only pursue temporary gratification (we've basically confirmed this through modern neuroscience - your subconsciousness decides, and your consciousness only notices after the neurons have already fired) and their goals are not necessarily rational, there will always be conflicts. That and the pursuit of felicity doesn't have a 'win condition'; there's always something else to pursue no matter what you already have, so there will always be conflicts over resources. So if we can't plan society around eliminating resource scarcity and social differences to eliminate conflict, shouldn't we focus on mitigating conflict through maximizing individual freedoms (which effectively means throwing people out of society or into jail when they display an unwillingness to respect the liberty of other individuals)?

[Putnam]

Operant conditioning. Make people enjoy acting rationally and pursuit of felicity/rational behavior will be synonymous.

That sounds dangerously like brainwashing, though.

[MDFification]

Operant conditioning. Make people enjoy acting rationally and pursuit of felicity/rational behavior will be synonymous.

That sounds dangerously like brainwashing, though.

Well, essentially, it is. It's changing the fundamental motivators of a persona. That is pretty hefty brainwashing.

So we're left with a species that by nature is not suited to live in a planned society, but also is not well suited for anarchy. I suppose if anything beyond the current model (requiring a coercive force to ensure individual liberties) was effective, it'd be the norm by now anyway.

[ArKFallen]

Operant conditioning. Make people enjoy acting rationally and pursuit of felicity/rational behavior will be synonymous.

That sounds dangerously like brainwashing, though.

If it happens long enough through life on a large enough scale it is considered culture. And we all know how much people like to defend that.
A very real problem though is that over a long enough period of time (and different circumstances) culture diverges so it is a long term temporary solution. It would have to be done consistently and repeatedly.

[Antsan]

You are assuming that humans are unchangeable and are unwilling to change.
If a person is willing to change and is changed that way it isn't brainwashing (or at least not a bad thing, even if it technically may be brainwashing).
When you seize control over more and more of yourself that means you can change the things which make you unable to live in the kind of society you want to eventually live in.

[MDFification]

You are assuming that humans are unchangeable and are unwilling to change.
If a person is willing to change and is changed that way it isn't brainwashing (or at least not a bad thing, even if it technically may be brainwashing).
When you seize control over more and more of yourself that means you can change the things which make you unable to live in the kind of society you want to eventually live in.

The nature of the human decision making process doesn't change. It's hardcoded into the human brain. We do not have limited wants; driven by the need to prepare for potential future crisis, each of us does not rationally consider what is enough resources without significant social pressure to mitigate individual consumption.

[misko27]

Well, speaking solely in the language of unchanging human nature, I would argue that if nothing else, the social pressure you are describing, MDF, is a complicated tool with has the capacity for quite a bit of nuance (as can be seen in the differences between existing cultures today), and to the extent that the contours of social pressure can be adjusted, people can be adjusted.

[Reelya]

"Libertarian Communism"

The only reason I'm not a communist is because I dislike control.

The only reason I'm not a libertarian is because I dislike leaving people to go hang.

So I call myself a social democrat.

Well, Marx's definition of Communism doesn't involve the state as an entity, it's decentralized. Libertarian Communists stress the "commune" part, which is a local council. In Marx's schema, those were the core governing bodies. Lenin basically abolished/exterminated the communes, which were supposed to be the organizing principle in Marx, hence Soviet "communism" is a bit weird, since it isn't based on communes (local elected councils), which was the entire point of why Marx called it Communism in the first place. Soviet "communism" is therefore like living in a "democracy" where ther are no elections: they can call it that (like the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea), but it ain't so.

The difference between a Social Democrat and a Libertarian Communist, is that the first one emphasizes a nation state with a welfare net and capitalism, i.e. a top-down system, whereas the second one emphasizes local council elections / local community ownership of production, building into a network of independent units, which is a "bottom up" concept. So in this case, communes are sort of like guilds but with internal elections.

This is a core distinction: top-down social theories vs bottom-up social theories.

[Frumple]

"The human decision making process doesn't change, except that it does." (when dealing with sufficient external pressure)

... okay?

Human nature is a really shifty thing that likes to do rather odd things when exposed to new external variables. Base decision making heuristic holding steady or not, it's pretty bloody easy to, y'know, make that heuristic spit out entirely different results. So it's only marginally useful as a point of discussion -- our base neurology largely effects only the efficient method of achieving an end, not the possibility of it.

[misko27]

"The human decision making process doesn't change, except that it does." (when dealing with sufficient external pressure)

... okay?

Human nature is a really shifty thing that likes to do rather odd things when exposed to new external variables. Base decision making heuristic holding steady or not, it's pretty bloody easy to, y'know, make that heuristic spit out entirely different results. So it's only marginally useful as a point of discussion -- our base neurology largely effects only the efficient method of achieving an end, not the possibility of it.

But efficiency becomes very important when we are talking about humans beings as a class, rather then on individual bases. It could totally be possible for people to independently become enlightened or rational or what-have-you (and if that is working for you, by all means), but if telling everyone to copy them leads to the vast sweeping majority of people failing, then it really isn't useful. Everyone is getting exposed to all sorts of new variables every single day right now, but the end result could hardly be termed ideal. We'll hardly stop conflicts if only a few people ever are right for it.

[Antsan]

You are assuming that humans are unchangeable and are unwilling to change.
If a person is willing to change and is changed that way it isn't brainwashing (or at least not a bad thing, even if it technically may be brainwashing).
When you seize control over more and more of yourself that means you can change the things which make you unable to live in the kind of society you want to eventually live in.

The nature of the human decision making process doesn't change. It's hardcoded into the human brain. We do not have limited wants; driven by the need to prepare for potential future crisis, each of us does not rationally consider what is enough resources without significant social pressure to mitigate individual consumption.

Evolution is still a thing, even with modern humans.
Also we now have got technology and it seems we get to the point where we can start to apply it to ourselves.

Also also I think that a lot of misanthropes are severely overestimating the scope of their experiences. Everytime I hear people talk about how bad humans are deep down I feel like I live in some kind of localized Utopia, where everyone (safe a few exceptions, maybe one person in 10 or less) has got superior education, is extraordinarily empathetic and generally "better" than what people imply is normal.

[scriver]

I sometimes feel that a lot of people being misanthropic on the internet base a big deal of their opinions on their bad experiences in grade school.

[SirQuiamus]

...especially when the said experiences happened last week.

[MDFification]

You are assuming that humans are unchangeable and are unwilling to change.
If a person is willing to change and is changed that way it isn't brainwashing (or at least not a bad thing, even if it technically may be brainwashing).
When you seize control over more and more of yourself that means you can change the things which make you unable to live in the kind of society you want to eventually live in.

The nature of the human decision making process doesn't change. It's hardcoded into the human brain. We do not have limited wants; driven by the need to prepare for potential future crisis, each of us does not rationally consider what is enough resources without significant social pressure to mitigate individual consumption.

Evolution is still a thing, even with modern humans.
Also we now have got technology and it seems we get to the point where we can start to apply it to ourselves.

Also also I think that a lot of misanthropes are severely overestimating the scope of their experiences. Everytime I hear people talk about how bad humans are deep down I feel like I live in some kind of localized Utopia, where everyone (safe a few exceptions, maybe one person in 10 or less) has got superior education, is extraordinarily empathetic and generally "better" than what people imply is normal.

Hobbes isn't a misanthropist, and neither am I. It's not about condemning human nature, it's about not romanticizing human motivation. There isn't a moral judgement involved in saying that human want is not fundamentally satiable and that humans are not by nature motivated by pure rational self-interest.

[Antsan]

What applies to misanthropes applies to everyone else who talks about human nature.

There is no such thing as "human nature" and there is no such thing as "humanity" or "human motivation" either. Those are abstractions, roadblocks for your mind, petty excuses and killer arguments. I've never seen it done that someone talked about "human nature" and then proceeded to do something productive.

I don't see how being insatiable means we cannot proceed to do better than today. Being insatiable is what makes life interesting. I'm not even talking about that whole slew about how we need pain and strife in our life to feel positive emotions (which I don't believe) but I just know that every bit of fun I had in my life was due to some kind of change. When we learn to cause the right kinds of changes around and in us, being insatiable is a good thing.