Do you think people are innately good?

[Prince Myshkin]

I believe we are born with the instinct to survive and be successful

through any means necessary

But then I think we're all born with the instinct to protect and to sympathise with others.

 

So a bit of good and a bit of bad

 

Then you add in future nurture, acquired characteristics and personal mental strength which can dictate how much these things affect the individual.

 

Or you don't. I think you do.

[Kiame]

There's so much to judge in what is good and bad. In some cases part of it depends on how much a person is influenced by others on how they turn out. Some people don't have much of a chance to be good because of the surroundings they are brought up in and if they are heavily influenced by those around them and they develop ways in which to assimilate what is happenning around them which are generally seen as lacking lacking empathy then they need to have a lot of strength to buckle against this sometimes accidental conditioning and search deeply to develop their more empathetic characteristics.

 

We all have certain instincts which revolve around reproduction but sometimes humans perception on exactly what reality is and what is important can become distorted. It's why those who don't have the strength can become more easily manipulated or continue what others perceive as negative morals etc through to further generations or spread them across the relationships they have.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have time to re-read and check just how much of that made sense but I know what I mean, whether I'm correct or not is another matter. Surroundings (for those who don't have the strength to control their own personal development) and ways of assimilating the world around them/perception matter a lot as opposed to simply being born good or bad. It's why serial killers' personal lives int he early years often follow similar patterns.

 

So nurture over nature, though certain characteristics have been proved to pass through generations. That doesn't mean a person can't deal with these characteristics or make changes to them if they wish to. It requires strength though.

 

This is very much the old school way of thinking. It certainly seems to be correct, and I think it is correct when we are talking about petty criminals and their lifestyle choices, but recent evidence suggest that nature takes quite a lot of precedent over nurture.

 

The studies and tests that have shown this recently are incredibly complicated, but to give you a brief over view:

 

- A personality test is devised by team of psychiatrists and psychologists. It's goal is to measure how people interact with the world and apply their individuality to the situation. It also measures their behavioural traits.

 

- Two people at a time are given the personality, their results are compared. If they get a score of 100, that means their personalities are virtually identical. A score of 0 is the opposite.

 

- They start to test hundreds and hundreds of random people. Random people, from the same culture have about, if I remember correctly, score about 40. This is the "nurture" base. Random people from different cultures usually have a score about 20. This is the "human" base.

 

- Siblings are tested. Siblings are three times as likely to score higher on the test than strangers are. Make sense.

 

- Identical twin siblings are tested. They are even more likely than siblings to score higher.

 

- Now here is where it gets interesting. Adopted siblings are tested. People who have been adopted into a family as a baby are tested against their siblings who they have literally known and grown up with all their lives. The results? These adopted siblings had the same chance of scoring high on the personality comparison test as two strangers did.

 

- Identical twins and siblings that have been split apart through adoption are tested. They have the same chances of scoring as high in the personality test as siblings who have never been split apart.

 

There were a few minor problems with the way the experiments where conducted, but the experiment has been repeated in different countries since and the results have been largely identical. Truly ground breaking when you think about social science.

 

From a medical perspective, we've been taught that nature seems to favour itself over nurture too. But the experiments that suggest this are far too complicated to type out. Plus I have a shift in an hour.

 

So yeah, no conclusions, but it seems evidence is starting to suggest nature over nurture now. Which is absolutely incredible, because it certainly makes more sense for nurture to matter more. And just thinking about it, your opinions make perfect sense. But the truth seems far more interesting.

[Brent]

The reason why I asked is because I've always had faith in people being good and wanting to best to come of not only themselves, but of humanity as a whole. However, I have recently come to believe that people who regard this line of thinking are at a distinct disadvantage.

 

I always seem to be trampled by those whom I care for, deeply, and I think it's because I have a lot of respect for anyone within a human vessel. I give a lot but it always seems to backfire and I get hurt by it :angry:

 

Oh well. I'm not going to stop being a good person.

[suzanafg]

I think as humans (as opposed to other species) we are born with a wide range of ways to act and a wide range of ways to perceive things (because of the configuration of our bodies and 'mind'). None of these things are inherently good or bad; it all depends on a number of varieties that we couldn't possibly know of, let alone control. Add to the math the different ways you can perceive a single state-of-affairs.

 

I do believe though that we do have control of our acts and if we decide to do so we can change our general pattern of behaviour. Though we can't control what happens around us, we can indeed control how we react to this and what we will do about it. Usually, I think we generally tend to just let ourselves drag, but in principle we have the choice to change it if we want.

 

So I don't know what 'being inherently good' means, I just think that we can figure out what is a good and decent way of acting in a given situation and that we can decide if we will do that, do something else or completely ignore it. What would be innate is that wide range of choices of how to act.

 

That's a very interesting question. There is every chance no one will get a definitive answer, but that just makes it more important to ask. And I found what you guys are saying really interesting.

[Prince Myshkin]

This is very much the old school way of thinking. It certainly seems to be correct, and I think it is correct when we are talking about petty criminals and their lifestyle choices, but recent evidence suggest that nature takes quite a lot of precedent over nurture.

 

The studies and tests that have shown this recently are incredibly complicated, but to give you a brief over view:

 

- A personality test is devised by team of psychiatrists and psychologists. It's goal is to measure how people interact with the world and apply their individuality to the situation. It also measures their behavioural traits.

 

- Two people at a time are given the personality, their results are compared. If they get a score of 100, that means their personalities are virtually identical. A score of 0 is the opposite.

 

- They start to test hundreds and hundreds of random people. Random people, from the same culture have about, if I remember correctly, score about 40. This is the "nurture" base. Random people from different cultures usually have a score about 20. This is the "human" base.

 

- Siblings are tested. Siblings are three times as likely to score higher on the test than strangers are. Make sense.

 

- Identical twin siblings are tested. They are even more likely than siblings to score higher.

 

- Now here is where it gets interesting. Adopted siblings are tested. People who have been adopted into a family as a baby are tested against their siblings who they have literally known and grown up with all their lives. The results? These adopted siblings had the same chance of scoring high on the personality comparison test as two strangers did.

 

- Identical twins and siblings that have been split apart through adoption are tested. They have the same chances of scoring as high in the personality test as siblings who have never been split apart.

 

There were a few minor problems with the way the experiments where conducted, but the experiment has been repeated in different countries since and the results have been largely identical. Truly ground breaking when you think about social science.

 

From a medical perspective, we've been taught that nature seems to favour itself over nurture too. But the experiments that suggest this are far too complicated to type out. Plus I have a shift in an hour.

 

So yeah, no conclusions, but it seems evidence is starting to suggest nature over nurture now. Which is absolutely incredible, because it certainly makes more sense for nurture to matter more. And just thinking about it, your opinions make perfect sense. But the truth seems far more interesting.

Interesting indeed. Thanks for that! There was a recent documentary by Horizon on the BBC which I need to watch about psychopaths and the whole nature/nurture thing. I need to watch it.

[Prince Myshkin]

I dunno this is an interesting debate. I personally think people are more conditioned to be evil than be good.

 

I'm not convinced it's a conscious thing where people are conditioned to be more 'evil' but I do think our perceptions are being twisted in order to benefit others which leads to questionable acts by all involved, complicit or not.

[rudy_o]

wow this thread is a good read

[the_gloaming09]

neither. You can't really specify what is good or bad since it's subjective. I think a lot of it has to deal with culture too, we might think some things are good or morally acceptable but other cultures might think the opposite.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I have met the most horrible of monsters but have met far more good people. Whenever I've needed help, someone has been there every time. So overall I think people are naturally good.

[bellynelly]

I have noticed as I have got older that people are nastier to each other than when I was a kid. I know far more people now who are only good to you for something in return, nobody does anyone favours anymore unless theres something in it for them, I always say that I never got anywhere in life because I am not willing to kiss ass! If you try for jobs, in my experience of it anyway, its not what you know, its who you know. Doesn't matter if you cannot do the job at all, but if someone puts in a good word for you or something like that you will get the job over anyone who is not connected and just has the knowledge/experience. Everyone is out for themselves these days, its very sad and thats how I feel, I wish I didn't.

[Prince Myshkin]

I have noticed as I have got older that people are nastier to each other than when I was a kid. I know far more people now who are only good to you for something in return, nobody does anyone favours anymore unless theres something in it for them, I always say that I never got anywhere in life because I am not willing to kiss ass! If you try for jobs, in my experience of it anyway, its not what you know, its who you know. Doesn't matter if you cannot do the job at all, but if someone puts in a good word for you or something like that you will get the job over anyone who is not connected and just has the knowledge/experience. Everyone is out for themselves these days, its very sad and thats how I feel, I wish I didn't.

 

Indeed. And in this financial climate it's not even who you know. It's who you blow.

[Prince Myshkin]

neither. You can't really specify what is good or bad since it's subjective. I think a lot of it has to deal with culture too, we might think some things are good or morally acceptable but other cultures might think the opposite.

 

Yes. Human social norms change throughout the eras, never mind throughout the world. Drug use, homosexuality, science, etc etc.

[Kiame]

Yes. Human social norms change throughout the eras, never mind throughout the world. Drug use, homosexuality, science, etc etc.

 

Even more major morals change throughout the eras. Opinions on rape, murder, torture, etc.

 

I can't even think of one trait that all humans agree to be "bad". I guess being unloyal or distrustful is the closest you can get.

[Prince Myshkin]

Even more major morals change throughout the eras. Opinions on rape, murder, torture, etc.

 

I can't even think of one trait that all humans agree to be "bad". I guess being unloyal or distrustful is the closest you can get.

 

Yes. Which is tragic.