lend me a fiver!

[Daz Madrigal]

Humans hard-wired to be generous
WASHINGTON, May 28 (UPI) -- A study by government scientists in Washington indicates humans are hard-wired to be unselfish.

Neuroscientists Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman of the National Institutes of Health say experiments they conducted have led them to conclude unselfishness is not a matter of morality, The Washington Post reports.

Rather, the two say altruism is something that makes people feel good, lighting up a primitive part of the human brain that usually responds to food or sex.

Grafman and Moll have been scanning the brains of volunteers who were asked to think about a scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves.

They are among scientists across the United States using imaging and psychological experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass.

The results are showing many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, opening up a new window on what it means to be good.


..GET THE MEN IN WHITE COATS NOW!

[piccione]

////..GET THE MEN IN WHITE COATS NOW!////

Why?

Do you go along with the church telling us that religion/Christianity taught humans ‘morality’ and social moral values?

It’s perfectly natural for human beings to behave ‘altruistically’ and have a ‘social conscience’ since we are ‘social animals’. We would not survive on our own. ‘Altruism’ (as ‘selfishness’) in biological terms is ‘neutral’ and doesn’t imply a conscious intention to do ‘good’. It’s another form of ‘selfish’ behaviour that we indirectly profit from. Behaving ‘altruistically good’ is a cultural constructs, ie ‘defining’ what is ‘naturally’ and innately human (and in some cases it’s taken to an extreme that is positively /unnatural/).

We want/need to sustain our species, and be part of a social group, in the short term (for ourselves) as well as long term (for future generations). ‘Unselfish’ behaviour is as much part of that as is ‘selfish’ behaviour, and ‘giving’ is or can be as rewarding as ‘receiving’: ‘altruistic’ choices prevailing over selfish material interests because they make us feel good, and support our social group, or individuals in that group.

The ‘social animal’ in humans is so strong that when we act /truly/ selfishly ie (potentially) counterproductive/destructive to the group, we make ‘excuses’, ie delude ourselves, or we have to be psychologically so detached from our social group that it doesn’t weigh on our conscience (ie produce feelings of guilt) when acting /truly/ selfishly. This complete detachment is the result of culture, not of ‘human nature’.

[Daz Madrigal]

Why do you keep dragging religion into it.

Where was the altruism when soldiers were rounding up hundreds of Polish families, shooting them and then throwing them into pits?

Or sending them to concentration camps?

Or Gulags?

Or........type in numerous other examples.

[piccione]

/////Why do you keep dragging religion into it./////

Because people tend to either believe that morality was ‘given’ to us by an external entity, or they ‘believe’ that 'moral behaviour' is innately human. That’s why. Morality ‘granted’ selectively to humans is only possible when it’s externally ‘imposed’, and not innate.

/////Where was the altruism when soldiers were rounding up hundreds of Polish families, shooting them and then throwing them into pits?/////

Strangely enough, ‘altruism’ ie loyalty to and support of one’s own social group /was/ there.

But are you /seriously/ suggesting that human ‘altruism’ (as in doing ‘good’) doesn’t exist because humans are, or can also be violent and evil? Or are you deliberately being simple-minded....

A propensity to violence is as innately human as is a propensity to support each other. It depends on the (cultural) circumstances of when it is called ‘evil’ and when is it not.

It’s the detached judgment of those not ‘involved’’ -who are safe and dry- claiming that only isolated groups have the capacity of being (destructively) violent, without acknowledging that it’s a human trait, mostly, and quite ‘rightly’, culturally suppressed, but also /innately/. In ‘healthy’ individuals within social groups that have no (current) ‘need’ for violence, it’s unnecessary, and destructive.

Collective violence is another form of group behaviour and ‘support’, whether it’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. And the line between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is permeable (and bendable) for /all/ humans. There is no ‘them’ (permanently on the ‘evil’ side) and ‘us’ (permanently on the ‘good’ side).

Take away people’s sense of individuality, ie ‘dehumanise’ them (by various means and strategies) and they will far more likely participate in committing collective evil acts (copying others within that anonymous, homogenous group), because the loss of individuality also shifts responsibility away from the individual onto the group/leadership.

It’s the same principle as with the bystander effect: The larger the group of bystanders, the less likely the individual is to intervene (e.g. to prevent a violent crime), becasue the large group 'anonymises' the individual. They will copy other passive bystanders and shift responsibility onto the group. If they are the only bystander, they haven’t got that ‘excuse’, have to take responsibility for themselves, maintian their individuality - and are far more likely to intervene.

And why choose examples from the past? There are plenty around today. I’d call the war dead in Iraq victims of a totally unjustified invasion, but the army doing the killing is complying with what /their/ social group deems ‘right’.

"For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." (Hamlet)

I could name you just as many acts of /positive/ human ‘altruism’. Which trait prevails depends on circumstamces/situation.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Because people tend to either believe that morality was ‘given’ to us by an external entity, or they ‘believe’ that 'moral behaviour' is innately human. That’s why. Morality ‘granted’ selectively to humans is only possible when it’s externally ‘imposed’, and not innate. >>

Obviously some of the most moral people aren't religious.

By that I don't mean they are even 'atheists'..they are just ordinary people getting on with life and in fact -as you know - they are the majority. In other words the type of people on msg brds who are either deeply devout or more commonly, aggressively atheistic (having read to many Dickie Dawkins) are a very small minority.

There ARE people in the 'real world' who couldn't give a monkeys about the so-called 'big problems'..whether its Global Warming, God or the potential danger of Meteorites. They are just getting on with life and occasionally they happen to be fine and upstanding people.

I think there is a possible point that in the past the poverty stricken - nowadays called the Underclasses - were helped morally by some very basic foundations and tenets of Religion. In effect, it doesn't matter if the religion is false or true but the moral foundations are at least sound, and thats better than having no basic foundation in morals whatsoever. So whatever is hardwired into the brain - if we assume its true -- is quickly unwired by the sheer happenstance of spending 20 yrs on a Sink Housing Estate.

I mean there are extremes to illustrate the point.

Lord Longford was a bit of an old twit but he DID possess some form of moral compass - as did Tony Benn (you'll not my tendency to personalise everything!).
So he preaches to a lost cause in Myra Hindley.

Now once she shows some contrition by studying Theology rather than the Marquis De Sade literature favoured by Melon Ian Brady she admits to certain murders and this has a side effect of her partner in crime coming fwd and admitting his. So there is some kind of result.

At least one more body was found. And given a decent burial.

Therefore despite the derision heaped on the Roman Catholicism of Longford it did, at the very least, show that at least in Hindley there was at least some humanity - but it took religion to squeeze it out of her.

btw. I'm not dissing you but I prefer "real examples and specifics" rather than generalisations about "religion"..generalisations get us nowhere and remind me of Sociologists banging on about 'blue collar workers' and 'white collar'..and when nearly everyone you know is a bit of both it descends into a type of social pigeon-holing.

I'm sure you're aware of piccione-holing.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Strangely enough, ‘altruism’ ie loyalty to and support of one’s own social group /was/ there. >>

Ah throwing people into gas chambers is a form of 'altruism' is it, Piccione?

You're distorting the word with the dexterity of a glass blower.

Now they've found the 'altruism' gene lets hope it isn't negated by the 'selfish' gene.

[piccione]

I see – it’s /you/ who wants to 'drag religion into this'.....

////Obviously some of the most moral people aren't religious.////

I doubt any non-religious person would claim that /fundamental/ morals were ‘granted’ to humankind by an outside entity. Unless they are not quite so sure about their non/religious status.....

There may well be non-religious people who believe that, over the centuries, it was the church that set our fundamental moral code, like ‘Thou shallt not kill’ etc – right! – and before Christianity, people just randomly slaughtered their families, friends, neighbours etc. And all that stopped with Christianity.

We had this discussion before, and the ‘moral codes’ that are /truly/ based on religion are not those that are fundamental to humankind, and human co-existence, but those that affected the individual/groups according to what the church believed was ‘right’ and ‘moral’.

In the 13th/14th century, under the strong influence of the church, the murder rate in England was 23 per 100.000. Between 1950-1994 (when the church had substantially lost influence), the murder rate was 0.9 per 100.000.

Of course, I could argue equally selectively, and fallaciously establish a causal link between the decline in the church’s influence and the decline in homicides, to err ‘illustrate the point’. The true reasons, however, are of course /many/ factors. Our society has ‘evolved’. For example, death is not as visible and 'normal' as it used to be, in every day life (due to medical advances, health care etc), /all/ human life has ‘equal value’, and the ‘value’ of human life has generally increased.

But no doubt you will prove me wrong on this by the ‘personalised’ example of Peter Sutcliffe, or some other serial killer. Or with the case of some murderer who got a lower sentence than s/he deserved.

////There ARE people in the 'real world' who couldn't give a monkeys about the so-called 'big problems'..whether its Global Warming, God or the potential danger of Meteorites. They are just getting on with life and occasionally they happen to be fine and upstanding people.////

Yes. And your point is?

////I think there is a possible point that in the past the poverty stricken - nowadays called the Underclasses - were helped morally by some very basic foundations and tenets of Religion. /////

There is also a ‘possible’ point that /many/, individually and collectively, suffered and died in the past because of religion.

The /real/ point, however, is that /organised/ ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (religious or not) has an overall greater impact, and is therefore remembered for longer than non-organised versions - meaning that there were (and are) also many people, not motivated by religion, who did/do ‘good’, and ‘evil.

////In effect, it doesn't matter if the religion is false or true but the moral foundations are at least sound, and thats better than having no basic foundation in morals whatsoever.////

Only when you believe we’d have no ‘basic foundation in morals whatsoever’ if it wasn’t for religion – which you clearly do, and I clearly don’t.

////So whatever is hardwired into the brain - if we assume its true -- is quickly unwired by the sheer happenstance of spending 20 yrs on a Sink Housing Estate. I mean there are extremes to illustrate the point.////

To illustrate what point exactly? That people, religious or not, are perfectly capable of discarding ‘morals’ and behaving selfishly? Tell me something new.

I think you slightly overstate the findings explained in the article. It’s not an innate /conscious/ determining factor of what is (morally) ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, it’s an (in itself neutral) reward system that is triggered by external, conscious (social/moral) impulses ie beliefs/motifs. That trigger itself may be overall morally ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ (or ‘neutral’). What is important though is its (cultural) meaning for the individual.

/////btw. I'm not dissing you but I prefer "real examples and specifics" rather than generalisations about "religion"..generalisations get us nowhere and remind me of Sociologists banging on about 'blue collar workers' and 'white collar'..and when nearly everyone you know is a bit of both it descends into a type of social pigeon-holing.////

Let me get this straight: Your idea is that arguing by ‘personalising’ is a legitimate strategy for drawing conclusions from /one/ selective example (chosen by /you/) for a whole phenomenon.

If I posted a ‘personalised’ list (names and all) of the many kids who have died in the last years because of parental religious-based medical neglect, would that be a convincing argument for drawing negative conclusions about the effects of /religion/, as a whole?

No? I hadn’t thought so. As a matter of fact, it’s a logical fallacy, and such selective individual ‘anecdotes’ don’t prove anything as far as the /whole/ phenomenon is concerned, be these ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. At the most they ‘prove’ propensities of the individual. They don’t even ‘prove’ a causal link between those (individual propensities) and the overall phenomenon.

Y’know what – I think I rather do it the other way round: I look at the overall facts and general trends of a whole phenomenon, and ‘judge’ the individual that is part of that phenomenon on their individual merits and traits, if that’s ok with you.

////Ah throwing people into gas chambers is a form of 'altruism' is it, Piccione?

You're distorting the word with the dexterity of a glass blower.

Now they've found the 'altruism' gene lets hope it isn't negated by the 'selfish' gene./////

No, I’m not ‘distorting’ the meaning. I’m using the ‘biological’ meaning of ‘altruism’ and ‘selfishness’ (as I actually said in an earlier post), which are neutral, ie free from /conscious/ /moral/ value.

I’m not surprised you drew the wrong conclusions from the findings in the article, if you use the cultural/moral meaning of (conscious) altruism and selfishness as a basis.

Maybe you should read up on these meanings (and on what a ‘selfish gene’ is), before ‘subtly’, and moronically, implying that I’m justifying or defending people being thrown into gas chambers.

I’m beginning to think you’re not being /deliberately/ simple-minded after all.....

[Daz Madrigal]

Interesting but flawed..

further reading recounts..that the murder rate declined rapidly (whilst still religious) and by the 16th century

Finally, the feuding clans, who now prided themselves on their courtly behavior, fought it out through the publication of dueling pamphlets, trying to best their rivals through elegant put-downs and masterly argument.

Killings in the Middle Ages weren't so much crimes as a way to resolve disputes within a lawless society

Its not quite the same thing, Piccy.

[Daz Madrigal]

Forget the article..I'm not quite as dismissive of you are making out.

I'm more concerned that you feel that throwing people into concentration camps is 'altruistic'...which is 'your' extrapolation.

I'm suggesting that you you are talking complete twaddle but would be pleased to hear your defence of it. So go ahead.

[piccione]

//// Interesting but flawed..////

Well yes /of course/ it is flawed! That’s the whole idea!

///…..further reading recounts..that the murder rate declined rapidly (whilst still religious) and by the 16th century////

Oh dear……erm no, it didn’t ‘suddenly’ drop from 23 to 0.9 at ‘cut off’ date 1950....

But that’s irrelevant to the fact that you missed the whole point of that example /completely/.

I wasn’t /actually/ arguing any causal link…<sigh>…

It was an (equally flawed) example (from the opposite perspective) of your /own/ flawed argument of establishing a simplistic /casual/ link between the church/religion and a fundamental moral code.

What we certainly /can/ establish is that you have a ‘natural propensity’ to walk /right/ into mirror traps, even when they are marked with a large warning sign that can be read from a mile away.....

And btw, no matter how ‘lawless’ we might consider the system today, feudal justice (‘by noble power’, including judicial duels) was ‘the law’ of local justice at the time. Not quite the same as ‘murder’, even by those standards.

And how many of the ‘noble judges’, do you think gave a dam/n about a simple peasant being killed by one of the aristocracy?

[piccione]

////I'm more concerned that you feel that throwing people into concentration camps is 'altruistic'...which is 'your' extrapolation.

I'm suggesting that you you are talking complete twaddle but would be pleased to hear your defence of it. So go ahead.////

What part of the paras below did you not understand?

[No, I’m not ‘distorting’ the meaning. I’m using the ‘biological’ meaning of ‘altruism’ and ‘selfishness’ (as I actually said in an earlier post), which are neutral, ie free from /conscious/ /moral/ value.

I’m not surprised you drew the wrong conclusions from the findings in the article, if you use the cultural/moral meaning of (conscious) altruism and selfishness as a basis.

Maybe you should read up on these meanings (and on what a ‘selfish gene’ is), before ‘subtly’, and moronically, implying that I’m justifying or defending people being thrown into gas chambers.]

....unless you are confusing ‘culture’ and ‘nature’ just as Sands did on the Mismatch thread - which is what I suggested was the case.

‘Altruism’ in biological terms has no ‘positive’ meaning (or ‘negative’ for that matter). It’s neutral, as in descriptive of a biological phenomenon, not a cultural qualification of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

If a group member is ‘altruistically’ (= biological definition) ‘motivated’ to support his/her social group, it doesn’t mean that the act itself is ‘altruistic’ (= ‘good’, in moral/cultural terms).

It /just/ means that humans are bloody HERD ANIMALS!

And /especially/ when they are being stripped of their individuality by ‘manipulation’ (through authority, for example), or give it up themselves – which again is ‘naturally motivated’ to ‘fit into’ that group, be that as passive bystanders, or as participants in collective evil acts. It’s a ‘natural’ ‘self-defence’ mechanism that ‘helps’ to overcome individual moral scruples.

And no, it’s not a (moral) justification of the ‘evil act’ – it’s /descriptive/ of human behaviour. We all do it (subconsciously) - /all the time/, and on very different scales.

Oh and btw….neither does ‘selfishness’ in biological terms have a ‘negative’ meaning.

If anything, in /cultural/ terms, both biological altruism and selfishness could be seen as inherently /selfish/, because they both serve individual or collective ‘interests’ – of maintaining the individual/family/group. But it is, of course, flawed to draw their ‘meaning’ into the cultural sphere, since they are not /conscious/ constructs of moral ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< I’m using the ‘biological’ meaning of ‘altruism’ and ‘selfishness’ (as I actually said in an earlier post), which are neutral, ie free from /conscious/ /moral/ value. >>

It isn't purely biological at all, Piccione.

Its only partly biological which is why being brought up in Nazi Germany is an excellent example of this so called 'altruistic gene' being rendered useless by environmental factors.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Maybe you should read up on these meanings (and on what a ‘selfish gene’ is), before ‘subtly’, and moronically, implying that I’m justifying or defending people being thrown into gas chambers.] >

Ah but it was you who suggested that the Commandants were merely being 'altruistic' to their fellow germans.

Which is of course - tosh.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< To illustrate what point exactly? That people, religious or not, are perfectly capable of discarding ‘morals’ and behaving selfishly? Tell me something new. >>

You obviously - as with many - have a "bee in your bonnet! about religion and its interesting that such folk are just as intolerant as the fundamentalists we should all abhor.

For example you completely ignore many of the beneficial benefits such as the giving of alms and the role of Abbeys in helping the poor and poverty stricken whilst adopting the role of apologist for the Nazis.

In other words you're an oddball fundamentalist with an axe to grind.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< If a group member is ‘altruistically’ (= biological definition) ‘motivated’ to support his/her social group, it doesn’t mean that the act itself is ‘altruistic’ (= ‘good’, in moral/cultural terms). >>

Yes and you use the Army as an example of this altruism, even the German Army. Would it not have more practical explanation such as the small fact that if you don't obey orders you are put in front on a Firing Squad, Piccy.