What is the problem with letting people fend for themselves?
Why do so many people develop that 'heroic' tendency to swoop in when there is a perceived injustice?
For me personally, when I see somebody drop money or a credit card, or if I see somebody dent a car and then speed off - I don't do shit.
In fact, I am liable to keep my eyes on the dropped money and try to swoop in and grab it if nobody is looking.
BUT
When I see people being personally and needlessly interfered with - a woman on the bus getting harrassed by a drunk, or a kid getting his ass whooped by bigger people, I can't stop myself from stepping in.
Personally, again, there is a deference between a person being directly and unnecessarily interfered with that prompts me to action, whereas anything to do wiff property, or anything that is the result of a person's own ignorance, I am more than content to sit back and let nature take its course.
What brought this to mind was a discussion I had recently about what 'justice' would be like in a society with no laws.
There is a difference in situations that I can't exactly describe in words.
But it has something to do with the difference between
a) people being disrupted or preyed upon unnecessarily
b) people walking face first into their own trouble
c) letting grown people have the opportunity to fend for themselves
d) letting nature take its course
Any thoughts on this?
(Postscript: also possibly related to this discussion: sociopaths who have no feeling of attachment toward anything)
also of note:
people and their notions of 'family':
some how - if your blood relative is a idiot and walks into trouble, why the hell would you bail him out in preference over another person?
it is notions like that which fuck the whole thing up
maybe the idiot relative needs to be left out to dry so he/she can learn a lesson or three
Did you ever get to see the movie "Threads"? It's set in Britain during the Cold War, and explores what would happen if in fact the bombs went off. One scene near the middle-end talks about how food in Britain would be rationed - anybody able to work would get 1000 calories a day, and anybody not able to work would get 500 calories a day. One man objects that 500 calories wouldn't keep a flea alive, and the answer is effectively "if they can't work, we can't afford to have them around".
I bring this up because I suspect that a few centuries ago, when it was a lot harder to get the resources you needed for daily survival, folks would be more likely to let the idiot relative hang out to dry and learn a few lessons, because there was less room to tolerate those in the community who didn't contribute sufficiently. Once folks got to the point where their basic needs were being met regularly, then they started paying attention to abstract concepts like justice and/or honour. Maslow's Hierarchy and all that shit. I wish I could talk to a medieval peasant and find out what *he* thought of chivalry and/or codes of honour. :D
The "contribute or go away" attitude is still kind of there, in the general disdain that a lot of people have for the homeless and single moms on welfare, but I think if we ever end up back in the Dark Ages, you'll see that lack of tolerance re-emerge more tangibly. Though if that happens, we might end up rather surprised at which among us ends up unable to contribute sufficiently. :D
Quote from: LHX on November 30, 2006, 04:08:49 PM
For me personally, when I see somebody drop money or a credit card, or if I see somebody dent a car and then speed off - I don't do shit.
In fact, I am liable to keep my eyes on the dropped money and try to swoop in and grab it if nobody is looking.
Disagree. I always put myself in the victims positon first. If they look like a wanker I'll take the cash but, if it's an average joe who might need the cash I'll prolly give it to her in the hope that she might invite me to give it to her.
Same thing with the car, depends if it's just your average car and the poor tosser that drives it might end up losing his job cos he can't afford the repair bill then I'll stick the license number under his windsreen wiper. If it's a fking jag or a beemer I'll whoop with joy.
'Judge not lest ye be judged' I do get judged and I have no compunctions about returning the favour.
I don't think there IS a problem with letting others fend for themselves.  Invariably those who shouldn't be bailed out and learn their lessons only harm you and themselves when others step in.  I'm not sure if the examples you gave are those of a helfpul, "learn or burn" nature...returning someone's stolen property doesn't make you an enabler in stupidity, per se.
I also don't think it's terribly heroic to stop injustice or perceived injustice.  It's something you have the character and moral basis for, or you don't.  You are acting on preconceived notions of right and wrong, and unless you're putting yourself in mortal danger by helping someone out, you're really just acting on morality and value judgments.
Sociopaths, to me, are those that have some semblance or even total dissociation from society and people in general.  They can't relate to friends in the positive or negative way that would be culturally acceptable.  Instead, they either passively aggressively ignore those around them, choosing to individuate their experiences to the exclusion of most positive social relationships, or they destroy what relationships already exist.  They have attachment to themselves only.  No one else.  Or as few as possible.
Family, now, that's a complex creature.  I think many take every opportunity to help their family members, and some quite the opposite.  Having not really studied any subculture other than my own, I can only suppose that it's a microculural phenomenon that fosters a sense of "save the brothers/sisters/cousins" first...
QuotePersonally, again, there is a deference between a person being directly and unnecessarily interfered with that prompts me to action, whereas anything to do wiff property, or anything that is the result of a person's own ignorance, I am more than content to sit back and let nature take its course.
This is the crux, of course. Someone who is so stupid as to leave their wallet lying around or think they are secure enough in their job to fuck around cannot exactly cry if something goes down and they end up fucked because of it.
Thats very different to the main breadwinner being hit by a speeding car with drunk drivers inside and having to take 6 months off work because their back and hips are totally fucked, for a first hand example.
Also, SillyCybin makes a good point too. Because everyone has off days sometimes, if they look like they might actually suffer alot because of something, I may step in.
What hasn't been touched on here is the interesting area of game theory vs justice in society. There was an interesting experiment done recently where 2 people were offered a hundred dollar bill - if they could agree on how to split it between them. Now, according to the theory, this is a relative gains transaction, so you should be just as happy with getting 10% of the cash as 75%.
However, people never did. They always went as close as possible to the 50% margin, even though it carried with it the possibility that the transaction would then fail. People seem to have an innate sense of fairness concerning such transactions, which can guide them into making decisions. This has an important sociological role in maintaining a relatively stable society, it was theorized. You may want to search for the paper (it was mentioned in several newspapers about a month back), it may have some interesting insights.
Quote from: LHX on November 30, 2006, 04:14:20 PM
also of note:
people and their notions of 'family':
some how - if your blood relative is a idiot and walks into trouble, why the hell would you bail him out in preference over another person?
it is notions like that which fuck the whole thing up
maybe the idiot relative needs to be left out to dry so he/she can learn a lesson or three
People who do anything for their families, reguardless of how much they've fucked up, are as stupid as nazi's. How? They pick something arbitrary and worship it. "unconditional love" (another rant of mine) is as dumb as fervent nationalism.
You don't pick you nation, why die for it.
Same goies for family.
what is family then?
what is a relationship that has value (if one were to look for that)?
some might suggest that people that move the same way and in the same direction are closer to being family than people from the same blood lines
a distinguishing between the term 'family' and the term 'relative'
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2006, 07:52:52 PM
What hasn't been touched on here is the interesting area of game theory vs justice in society. There was an interesting experiment done recently where 2 people were offered a hundred dollar bill - if they could agree on how to split it between them. Now, according to the theory, this is a relative gains transaction, so you should be just as happy with getting 10% of the cash as 75%.
However, people never did. They always went as close as possible to the 50% margin, even though it carried with it the possibility that the transaction would then fail. People seem to have an innate sense of fairness concerning such transactions, which can guide them into making decisions. This has an important sociological role in maintaining a relatively stable society, it was theorized. You may want to search for the paper (it was mentioned in several newspapers about a month back), it may have some interesting insights.
good point
i got this feeling that if presented with a sudden disappearance of law, there would be a initial phase of bedlam followed by a impending phase of strange fairness
Quote from: Jenne on November 30, 2006, 07:34:52 PM
I also don't think it's terribly heroic to stop injustice or perceived injustice. It's something you have the character and moral basis for, or you don't. You are acting on preconceived notions of right and wrong, and unless you're putting yourself in mortal danger by helping someone out, you're really just acting on morality and value judgments.
you think so?
or do you think there could be more to it than a value judgement?
from what i gather, its common for people to have a physical reaction when they see somebody wiff a open wound
as though their body instinct is to start healing it
like when kids see strange looking people and they stare as though they are trying to determine what is wrong
(and generally when people see something wrong, they begin considering ways to right it)
seriously
i can be doing my thing and see two dudes get into a tussle over somebody getting their shoe stepped on, and not think twice about intervening
but flip the situation and have some dude tussling wiff a old woman or something like that, and the situation somehow changes
nothing particularly
unexplainablebut its like the body reacts when it acknowledges some sort of lopsided equation
like taxi drivers delivering babies
or women gaining the strength of hulk when their baby is threatened
or like how you can tell the difference between a well-fed homeless person and a dude who is on the brink of starving
And there are people worldwide who allow rape/murder to go on right in front of their eyes/within earshot and do not a fucking thing. They teach women in self-defense classes to yell "Fire!" instead of "RAPE!" for this very reason.
I think it's conditioning, I really do. There are those that abandon their children in dumpsters. Why? Because they have no innate sense of heroism? Nah. I think they are acting on instinct. Why are there good samaritans, after a fashion, who will "save" you from your own situation when you're in mortal danger? Because they are conditioned to do so.
I really thing it's a value judgment, and a learned one. I think the old Darwinian principle of saving the bloodline actually holds more weight, thinking on it, than a visceral, altruistic notion of "how things oughtta be."
does it really matter whether it's nature or nurture?
when you look up close to it, it may seem a fine line anyway.
although there is one difference.
nurture can more often be corrected, even though it is sometimes very hard.
but you cannot make an old fox loose its tricks, or the scorpion ferrying the frog to not eat it or something like that.
Actually, I would say the nature vs nurture distinction is VERY important. Because if its nurture, then a radical overhaul of the education system could, in theory, solve many ills. However, if its nature, then it becomes a problem of deterrence instead of education. This has ramifications for prison, welfare, mental health, the military, social policy in general.....virtually the whole body politic, not to mention ethical philosophy and biology.
hm you're right, if it's nature that makes people act like that, it sheds a different light on it.
deterrence implies making rules that have to come from an external source. and that's, afaik, something discordians detest: "it's only a good rule if i could have figured it out by myself" (the "think for yourself" idea)
basically, the fork lies like this:
- if it's nurture, then basically deprogramming and operation mindfuck could potentially solve these problems. (if done well)
- if it's nature, we would be forcing people to act against their nature. going against the grain, imposing our will on them. even though the results might be good in a way, it sounds like a bad thing.
RAW kind of "solves" this problem of nature/nurture in his books by speaking about neophobes and neophiles as being two different kinds of species. the neophiles would be people "heroic", kind and creative by nature, where the neophobes are the little grey vinegar pissing bastards. dunno, sounds kinda scary.
otoh he also speaks about fnordconditioning, which would imply nurture.
does the principia itself speak about this nature nurture neo phile/phobe stuff?
and since discordians should neither listen to RAW nor to the PD, what do WE think?
people-badness: nature or nurture?
another age-old question, probably.
000 - remember, in Illuminatus!, RAW also posits that Graud was the first-ever Neophile.
Just because someone isn't afraid of new ideas, doesn't mean those ideas are good ones.
if youre in a bad enough situation, all new ideas are good just by virtue of being new
i didnt really want to go into what RAW said or did not say, cause graud being neophile or not, doesn't really matter, what happened in the I3 were just RAWs fantasies, not all of them meant as parables for what is right or not.
so (IMO) using a RAW story as an example context to make a point, ok. saying "remember RAW said this and this", badwrong.
still you make a good point, new ideas are not necessarily good ones. take for example that "creating life" documentary Cain posted -- snip which i will write about in the appropriate thread --
to get back:
Quote from: triple zero on December 06, 2006, 12:27:12 PMwhat do WE think?
people-badness: nature or nurture?
another age-old question, probably.
raises the more important question: does a nature-based "neophile/neophobe" distinction actually exist? how does this hold from a evolutionary perspective? though it doesn't really need to be heriditary to be part of one's nature: take for a similar example, homosexuality. evolutionary a strange phenomenon, but definitely part of one's nature.
Does it actually exist? no. It's a good metaphor though.
And, for the record, I wasn't appealing to authority by referencing RAW. I was pointing to a common parable that we probably would all know; that being that the one about the status quo being disrupted by a new idea. In this case, the status quo was a Discordian "paradise", and the new ideas were Order and Sin.
Yes, it is a re-telling of the Garden of Eden myth.
Quote from: LMNO on December 06, 2006, 03:31:35 PM
Does it actually exist?  no.  It's a good metaphor though.
well, that depends. the neophobe metaphor suggests it is something inherent in someone's nature, but it could also be part of someone's upbringing.
if it's nature i would not suggest trying to "decondition" such people, if it's nurture then they need a good kick in the mind.
Since we have yet to find a "Neophobe Gene", occams razor suggests it's nurture.
but since we also have yet to find a "gay gene" would homosexuality be nurture as well then?
Quote from: triple zero on December 06, 2006, 03:53:23 PM
but since we also have yet to find a "gay gene" would homosexuality be nurture as well then?
if i was forced to answer definitively, i put my money on yes
"Maybe/Both" is more accurate.
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm
Quote"Since sexual orientation is such a complex trait, we're never going to find any one gene that determines whether someone is gay or not," says Mustanski. "It's going to be a combination of various genes acting together as well as possibly interacting with environmental influences."
ok but in that case, is it a good thing/ethical/right to force neophobe people to deal with novel situations, as is the basis of any good Mindfuck?
edit: this seems to boil down to the question if it's right to force one's will on someone. (also please mind that i'm playing a littlebit advocate for the devil here)
Again, there is no evidence that neophobia is genetic.
So, yes. Also, because it's fun for the rest of us.
I hypothesize that neophobia/phelia is caused in Circuit 1 imprinting (if the circuit model is accurate).
is there reason to believe neophobia is self destructive?
i think so
homosexuality is a different story
it has been suggested that we are all part-gay in some aspect
but a homosexual lifestyle is a different story and may be a symptom of living in a society presided over by neophobes
what does a neophobe do when his old garden is no longer fertile?
this system we live in drives people to do all sorts of strange things (especially when there is laws prohibiting movement for no apparent reason)
neophobia= self-destructive?
to an extreme, perhaps. But it could also be considered self-preservation. Do what you know works, and you'll probably live longer.
Neophelia can get you into all sorts of trouble, from poisoning yourself to getting attacked by wild beasts.
As the broker record states, you need balance.
variety
new is part of a well balanced diet
maybe there needs to be a standard (neophobe) approach to engaging in new experiences
rather a neophobe approach to exhausting the same resources you were born with
The approach to get a Neophobe to do something new is to appeal to authority, and to convince said neophobe that people he/she respects have done it many times before.
That is, convince them that it's not really all that new.
somebody is thinking
the nature vs. nurture thing is an important distinction. IMO its some combination of both.
One example of this is the idea with homosexuality. there's probably a number of genes that contribute in combination with environmental factors. A similar idea: one study I read looked at the idea that there was a genetic basis for whether a person was affiliated with "liberal" or "conservative" political groups, which takes the "nature" thing to a level that I wouldn't have thought very probable, unfortunately I couldn't find a link to this study, but when i was googling for it, I found a link to this an article describing this one:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147
where they looked at the genetic basis for how religious a person is:
QuoteGenes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.
Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.
I think this really gives at least some evidence a genetic link between neophones/neophiles.
A couple of thoughts about that:
perhaps neophilia has become a genetically selected advantage just recently, just as the concepts of morality kind of evolved at the point where we were secure enough in our ability to survive that we didn't have to pick and choose who would live or die, maybe we're at the next level of consciousness evolution, or getting there, where we don't really need archaic forms or morality in order to guide us to do whats right or wrong? Are neophiles the first batch of psychological mutants that are learning to adapt to a high tech society? thoughts?
Quote from: LHX on December 06, 2006, 04:41:36 PM
somebody is thinking
Yeah dude knock that shit off - it's making the rest of us look bad in front of the noobs.
Quote from: LMNO on December 06, 2006, 04:30:29 PM
The approach to get a Neophobe to do something new is to appeal to authority, and to convince said neophobe that people he/she respects have done it many times before.
That is, convince them that it's not really all that new.
OR, convince them those that they hate and despise wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole...then they'll be all over it like white on Uncle Ben's.
FOUND IT!
http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=E1749043-E7F2-99DF-309373C72149C273
Researchers at the University of California, Davis, selected and randomly separated 120 students into groups of four. Each subject was arbitrarily assigned a certain amount of money; players knew how much money the others in their group had, but not to whom each amount belonged. Each player had the option of using some of his or her money to purchase the right to have the researchers subtract or award cash to another participant.
Subjects played the "game'' with different people in each of five trials Each time, "players'' adopted an egalitarian attitude when distributing the wealth in what study co-author and University of California, San Diego, political scientist James Fowler calls the "Robin Hood effect."
"People want to give rewards to the lowest [paid] member of the group and take away from the highest [paid] member of the group," he says. "I think that we were surprised by the magnitude of the punishment." Nearly 70 percent of the players reduced someone else's income at least once, and three quarters of them gave up a little to help someone in a weaker position. The behavior was consistent across all five trials, meaning people did not decide later to just look out for themselves.
We aren't the only ones who do this. "Fairness" seems to be a common learned primate behavior.
http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html (http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html)
Now can we kill the ones who are subverting 7 million years of human (primate) evolution?
RP,
doesn't really need an excuse to kill
Great find, Cain.
See Also: The Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) (a must-read for the Douglas Hofstadter fans)
This dilemma poses the question "is it rational to cooperate with others? If so, when?"
QuoteAxelrod reached the Utopian-sounding conclusion that selfish individuals for their own selfish good will tend to be nice and forgiving and non-envious. One of the most important conclusions of Axelrod's study [of Prisoner's Dilemmas] is that Nice guys can finish first.
and this quote is really dense, but interesting
QuoteWhile it is normally thought that morality must involve the constraint of self-interest, David Gauthier famously argues that co-operating in the prisoners dilemma on moral principals is consistant with self-interest and the axioms of game theory. It's most prudent to give up straightforward maximizing and instead adopt a disposition of constrained maximization, according to which one resolves to cooperate with all similarly disposed persons and defect on the rest. In other words, moral constraints are justified because they make us all better off, in terms of our preferences (whatever they may be). This form of contractarianism claims that good moral thinking is just an elevated and subtly strategic version of plain old means-end reasoning. Those that defect can be predicted because people are not completely opaque.
Douglas Hofstadter expresses a strong personal belief that the mathematical symmetry is reinforced by a moral symmetry, along the lines of the Kantian categorical imperative: defecting in the hope that the other player cooperates is morally indefensible. If players treat each other as they would treat themselves, then off-diagonal [win / lose] results cannot occur.
I'll throw some Game Theory into this mix tomorrow night.
Just remember, rational cooperation has its dark side (MAD is predicated along the same assumptions as underpins this socially constructed justice).
oh certainly.
The Prisoner's Dilemma suggests that if your parner / opponent is cooperating blindly, the rational thing to do is betray them for personal gain. Amoral but effective.
I watched a show on T.V. not long ago that postulated that much of the economic and political policy of the last half century was based on this idea.
The guy who came up with much of the theory has since disowned it, I will search for sources later, I'm busy writing just now. However, I get the feeling that Cain would be far better at discussing it anyway, so I'll just shut up for now...
It was, allegedly. Game theory can theoretically be applied to everything from economics to warfare to micro-management and law enforcement.
I don't know the name of the guy who put forward that theory about GT, but I'd be interested to see what he says.
It was the same guy who was in that Russel Crowe movie, a beautiful mind. Easy enough to find out If you're interested.
The T.V. series was called The Trap and was shown on BBC.
Without getting too far into :tinfoilhat: territory, a long time ago I read an anonymous tract* that the now defunct R.W.T. had gotten hold of, that claimed laws of economics had been discovered that made it a true scientific endeavour, with totally understandable rules, and that war played a massive role in economics, far more than even Marxists understood. And the book I was reading on Game Theory recently used very similar phraseology in its introduction...
*there is a long history of anonymous academic pieces coming out of Princeton, which was where GT was developed. Another of these would the original Ong's Hat papers.
nice posts in here
i didnt see this
Quote from: LHX on November 30, 2006, 04:08:49 PM
What is the problem with letting people fend for themselves?
Why do so many people develop that 'heroic' tendency to swoop in when there is a perceived injustice?
For me personally, when I see somebody drop money or a credit card, or if I see somebody dent a car and then speed off - I don't do shit.
In fact, I am liable to keep my eyes on the dropped money and try to swoop in and grab it if nobody is looking.
BUT
When I see people being personally and needlessly interfered with - a woman on the bus getting harrassed by a drunk, or a kid getting his ass whooped by bigger people, I can't stop myself from stepping in.
I am just now seeing this and bumping it back.
At what point are the first two examples different from the last?
It's easier to empathise with the victims in the latter examples as they are visible and ongoing.
A dropped wallet or a hit-and-run are instantaneous events that are easier to ignore.